Yu Laoliu | Even the right of ordinary people to “commemorate” is being interfered with

Today’s Weibo hot search list has an entry: Media discusses the waste of 94.6 tons of food in the Pang Mao incident. The criticism is directed at the act of netizens sending food through food delivery platforms to commemorate Pang Mao after he jumped off the Chongqing Yangtze River Bridge in April 2024.

Don’t get me wrong, don’t think it was written by The Paper. Actually, it’s not, it’s just a forwarder. The article was published by the Farmers’ Daily, and the author is Guo Shaoya.

And, it’s true, I really found Guo Shaoya’s information. There is a person with the same name in the Farmers’ Daily, who is not only a reporter but also the director of a certain department.

The reason why I need to clarify who the author is first is because when reading this article, I can feel her strong enthusiasm, righteousness, justice, and heartache—but it’s a rare masterpiece in traditional media in recent years, much stronger than those affected by the ‘New Year’s greetings’.

But I also feel a strange thing: In mid-March, as spring plowing was approaching, as a mid-level leader of the Farmers’ Daily, instead of caring about the sowing issue, checking whether farmers bought fake seeds, whether the water conservancy facilities could keep up, and whether fertilizer prices had risen, she couldn’t wait to come out and comment on something that happened last year, isn’t this idle?

Could it be that it was just a report by CCTV on March 15th? Later, netizens captured the video pictures from the report, and after reading them, they suddenly understood.

In fact, this masterpiece has a serious flaw that can completely turn the masterpiece into a bear article. That is, Guo Shaoya herself listed the objections of netizens:

Some people say, ‘Pang Mao’s short life was not easy, the person is gone, I order a takeaway for him to express my condolences, it’s not considered a waste; some people feel that the food is bought with my money, I don’t care, others have no right to comment; even more people think that food is not worth much, takeaway is not expensive, it’s not a brand-name bag, nor is it precious metal, used to commemorate a regrettable life, it has nothing to do with ‘waste’.

Yes, the author also thinks so. But Guo Shaoya did not directly answer, but brought up the current situation of China’s grain production and its history and global status, especially emphasizing that ‘one in five people in Africa is facing the problem of eating’—it seems in her heart, it would be great if these 94.6 billion tons of food were donated to African brothers.

You can’t say that what Guo Shaoya is talking about is wrong, and her arguments even need to be supported with both hands. However, what we are asking is about people, or more precisely: Can a person freely dispose of legal food purchased through legal income?

Don’t talk about anything else, just answer this question. And this question is very simple, it’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even elementary school students will answer ‘yes’ decisively.

The argument itself is wrong, no matter what arguments are given, it can only prove to be absurd. If we follow Guo Shaoya’s argument (logic), we have reason to believe that: the biggest food waste event is not the Pang Mao incident, but the Qingming Festival every year.

Now, civilized memorial is advocated, and few people burn incense and paper money, but there are still many people taking fruits. And they, in general, will not take them home again, but leave them there. After wind and sun, the fruits rot. No one eats them, according to Guo Shaoya’s logic, it is naturally a waste.

So on Qingming, countless people across the country have to pay respects to their ancestors, and they must bring far more than 94.6 tons of fruit, which is the biggest waste in the world. Moreover, Pang Mao only caused netizens to waste once, and there will be no more in the future. And Qingming, it happens every year.

Perhaps Guo Shaoya will say: you can bring flowers instead of fruits. Okay, let’s say everyone doesn’t bring fruit, but all bring flowers. Still according to Guo Shaoya’s logic, food is behind money, flowers are also behind money, food is waste, flowers are naturally so. Both are waste, why can flowers, but food can’t?

Regarding this matter, netizens are still to the point.

Guo Shaoya is playing with her historical knowledge, which is actually very ridiculous. I won’t refute the views in her article (it’s not easy to control the scale, it’s easy to go too far), let’s talk about another ‘phenomenon’: an old man surnamed Xu, who liked to drink Moutai before he died. After his death, everyone who went to pay their respects to him would bring a bottle of Moutai. And in front of his tomb, the Moutai bottles were piled up.

How much does a bottle of Moutai cost, how much does a cup of milk tea cost; how much grain does a bottle of Moutai need, how much grain does a fast food need…?

Can Guo Shaoya not calculate this account, then does she dare to criticize a word? Naturally, she doesn’t dare, as long as she dares to fart, her career will be over.

So, Guo Shaoya is a typical bully, which makes people think of Lu Xun’s classic words.

There are too many big hats at the moment. Not only this matter, but there was also something these two days, which was aimed at Old Li. The firepower was really intense. Still using the same point of view: Does he have the right to dispose of his own legal property?

On March 12, Hunan Normal University’s Weibo quoted a sentence from Hu Shi—Education is to give people a pair of glasses with light, to observe clearly; not to give people a beautiful dress, to show off in front of people—and then suffered a fierce bombardment.

What they bombarded was not this sentence, but Hu Shi himself. Why are they so hateful towards Hu Shi? Because Hu Shi is the one who truly brings hope:

Fight for your personal freedom, that is to fight for the freedom of the country! Fight for your own personality, that is to fight for the personality of the country! A free and equal country cannot be built by a group of slaves!

In the 90s, the Hu Shi craze rose in mainland China. Scholars in Taiwan were very surprised, saying, ‘What Hu Shi said are all superficial truths, there is no depth at all, it is no longer popular in Taiwan’. In response, a mainland scholar replied: What we lack is precisely ‘common sense’.