In recent days, there have been two completely unrelated events in the domestic entertainment industry and internationally. At first glance, they seem to have nothing to do with each other, but upon closer examination, it seems that they were likely orchestrated by the same type of people.
Let’s talk about the first event. A domestic platform, in preparation for the upcoming “Double 11” shopping festival, invited Yang Li, a popular female stand-up comedian from a certain comedy show, to be their spokesperson.
This was originally quite normal. Commercial platforms invite celebrities with high traffic to influence the consumption of their target audience. Yang Li is an excellent stand-up comedian, and her sharp criticism and mockery of male chauvinism in life have brought her traffic while also sparking occasional controversy.
It’s not hard to see that the target audience for the platform’s invitation is her fans, who can resonate deeply with her stand-up comedy routines. The “Double 11” shopping festival, a consumer holiday created by businesses, aims to attract mainly female consumers.
It stands to reason that even if Yang Li’s endorsement displeases her haters, they could simply vote with their feet and resolutely not consume on the platform. The shopping festival doesn’t really need to move Yang Li’s haters, the people who feel offended and perplexed.
However, these haters of Yang Li took shocking and extreme measures, hoping to pressure the platform to terminate its contract with Yang Li.
From common sense, if the endorsed spokesperson has not violated the contract or committed any wrongdoing, terminating the endorsement should require the platform to pay the agreed-upon penalty for breach of contract—of course, there should be similar clauses in the contract, otherwise, the agent would be unqualified.
Regardless of how Yang Li’s endorsement contract with the platform was drafted, the haters’ tricks succeeded, and the platform issued an announcement to cater to their demands.
There have already been many insightful comments about this matter, some of which are even considered masterpieces. I won’t comment further.
I only want to discuss a small topic: the group of people who are boycotting Yang Li are likely the same group of people who are mourning Sinwar.
This brings us to the other event. International news reported that Sinwar, the new leader succeeding Haniyeh, who was beheaded by Israel, was killed by the Israel Defense Forces in an encounter.
For specific details, you may refer to the previous article “Sinwar, who was killed, carrying a UNRWA ID card“.
Sinwar was the mastermind behind the October 7, 2023, massacre and kidnapping of innocent Israeli civilians. More than 1,500 innocent Israeli civilians and nationals of other countries were brutally murdered or kidnapped, including 12 nationals of the People’s Republic of China.
Furthermore, Sinwar was once sentenced to imprisonment by Israel for the murder of two Israeli soldiers and 12 Palestinian civilians, and he served over 20 years in prison. During his imprisonment, Sinwar suffered from a brain tumor and was cured by Israeli doctors through open-brain surgery.
In 2011, Sinwar, along with 1,027 other Palestinian prisoners, was released by Israel in exchange for a soldier kidnapped by Hamas.
After his release from prison, Sinwar continued to engage in terrorist attacks against Israel, including the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation a year ago, which resulted in the massacre and kidnapping of over 1,500 innocent civilians. From any perspective and value standpoint, this should be considered an outright act of terrorist massacre against innocent civilians.
Israel’s targeted killings of Hamas leaders have never included a targeted elimination of Sinwar, because he always had a child from Gaza with him, whether sitting in the audience or giving a speech on stage.
It wasn’t until a group of Israeli soldiers accidentally encountered Sinwar and his bodyguards while searching for supplies in a tunnel that they unexpectedly killed him.
People with different value positions have different feelings and interpretations of Sinwar’s killing. Some applaud, some mourn, which I believe are individual rights.
However, the people who mourn Sinwar share similar behaviors with those who pressured the platform to boycott Yang Li; they both tend to report those who have different views or standpoints.
In contrast, I have never seen any reports of people applauding the killing of Sinwar; I have never seen a single case.
From the perspective of personality psychology, personality is the psychological quality of a person’s relatively consistent psychological and behavioral patterns across time and situations. Therefore, the people who boycott Yang Li and the people who threaten to report others with different views on mourning Sinwar are the same type of people with consistent psychological and behavioral patterns.
Those who boycott Yang Li are probably a group of men who feel offended, and those who are interested in international news and have a strong desire to express themselves and pay attention are also mainly men. Taking the reader profile from my previous article as an example, over 85% of the readers interested in Sinwar are male.
Therefore, there is reason to believe that those who boycott Yang Li and those who mourn Sinwar are the same type of people. Their common characteristics are: narrow-mindedness, extremism; a strong sense of hatred towards others who are different from themselves; a fondness for attaching themselves to or demonstrating power, and a hatred of the weak; a preference for reporting, boycotting, and putting it into practice, with the aim of “eliminating” others who make them feel disgusted.
That’s all.
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.