Morality is the cheapest thing; it requires neither study nor independent thinking. Just picking up a few phrases passed down over thousands of years can make one appear "noble." Standing on the moral high ground is even less effort than climbing a step.
The incident involving Wu Liufang is merely common sense, but what is surprising is that quite a few low-profile influencers are still leading the narrative, saying she is a world gymnastics champion and has brought shame to the country.
Those who criticize her for being on the edge, please open your eyes. What exactly did she reveal in her video? Did she wear less than during the competition?
Moreover, on what basis does the platform of a certain post-80s billionaire ban her? Isn't this moral coercion and selective enforcement?
What is not prohibited by law is permissible.
Actions that are not explicitly prohibited by law are allowed, and those not authorized by law should not be arbitrarily banned. You always mention this edge and that edge, but may I ask, what exactly is the standard for defining "edge"? Who decides?
Just like in sports, there is also the term "borderline play," but as long as the borderline is reasonable, it counts as a valid score.
Wu Liufang chose to retire due to injury; she neither relied on the state nor on her parents' support, but instead became an internet celebrity through her own efforts to make a living. What is wrong with that?
Compared to those who appear virtuous but are actually full of schemes and misconduct, isn't such a choice worth affirming?
If Wu Liufang's actions are seen as borderline, then should Guan Chenchen, who also features thigh-baring dance, be questioned for being borderline as well?
Is it because she is an Olympic champion that she can show her thighs, while world champion Wu Liufang cannot?
If Wu Liufang is to be banned, does that mean Guan Chenchen and other similar influencers should also be banned?
If the platform takes punitive measures against Wu Liufang, should the regulatory authorities also deeply investigate the platform's regulatory responsibilities?
The moral decline of society does not begin with the possible "borderline" behavior of former gymnastics world champion Wu Liufang, but rather stems from the wrongdoing of the platform.
Some say banning Wu Liufang is about values and the face of the national team.
May I ask, how come former weightlifting champion Zou Chunlan, who has fallen to only being a massage worker, is not concerned about face?
Is it possible that Olympic champions and world champions are selected based on the Three Obediences and Four Virtues?
Many self-media accounts that criticize Wu Liufang appear exceptionally brave and righteous regarding this matter, yet when it truly matters, they often choose silence.
In the face of social injustice and corrupt officials, they are timid and dare not speak up, only showing courage when criticizing Wu Liufang, because it is safe and generates traffic to criticize her.
They are only brave when it is safe, generous when it is free, emotional when it is shallow, and sincere when it is foolish.
They have an almost pathological tolerance for the strong, while lacking sympathy for the weak, filled instead with disdain and contempt.
Mo Yan wrote in his book "The Late Bloomers": "The ugliness of human nature is to pick on the faults of the powerless, the powerless, and the good, while finding virtues in the powerful, the powerful, and the immoral. When the powerless, the powerless, and the good are harmed, they still stand on the so-called moral high ground, hypocritically persuading the powerless, the powerless, and the good to endure and be magnanimous."