An article, "low a smile, you stand still" and blow up the circle of friends of the nation. From the transmission of donations to the questioning of the salivation, the story has been mixed。
However, i am more concerned about the attitude of friends around me, the teams of opinion in the circle of friends, and the change in attitude that they have had when they learned the truth than when they looked into the houses and cars. It's always better than the news. It's not about what's at stake, but it's about what's best for people。
The first person in the circle of friends is a kind man full of love. Their first practice of forwarding articles and rewarding donations on the basis of the generosity of their hands is in any case a matter of recognition and praise. The second is a critic who, from the beginning to the end, has been watching with cold eyes, or has been forced to stand up in the face of events, standing in a moral high ground, scrambling his client with “crimes”。
Compared to the first, the second is undoubtedly indifferent, and it is difficult to say whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or simply to show their own vision. It is true that the words and actions of the client, rohr, were deeply flawed and flawed, and he was persuaded by his friends to share the economic pressure through the power of the network, albeit less condescending, but also by the instinct of ordinary people to avoid harm. We can be critical of malicious marketing and fund-raising, but it is a lack of compassion and tolerance that is the work of an uncivilized society in the form of moral stamina, physical attacks on families and human searches。
However, is the behaviour of the first person really to be encouraged? Is it really helpful that such a “better trust it all, forward it by hand” is not? I am afraid that, while it is not necessary to do so, human energy and social resources are limited. If too blindly transmitted indiscriminately, it will only make such cheap charity more widespread and ultimately less favorable. Will people be able to help when they hear more stories about the wolf and overwhelm their love and when those who really need it appear
Compared to the two above, the third category is rare but most needed by society. They've been here since the beginningIndependent thinkingLoveful but not blind, questioning but not verbal. Before giving their love, they spent their time looking for more information and asking why. While human beings are at first good, charity should go beyond human emotional instincts to become a normative, professional social act. Why does the law require parties to initiate fund-raising through formal organizations or platforms because of corresponding endorsements, open and transparent accounts and timely follow-up controls? A web-based fund-raising such as the one in which the people concerned can benefit is not conducive to china’s already fragile charitable ecology, and should not be promoted, even in the absence of marketing speculation。
Everyone should realize that good deeds should not be a cheap emotional expression, but rather a responsibility, a payment. Identifying the truth and giving love to those who really need it is an essential part of good deeds; otherwise, it can become hypocrisy and even fuel evil. So be a third person: a donor with the beginning and end, a man of reason。
Finally, whether the fund-raising is true or not, the pain is real, and i wish you an early recovery。
