论文部分内容阅读
一个人眉飞色舞地讲了个笑话,一些人捧腹大笑,但有人则板着面孔一巴掌甩在说笑话的人脸上——这是“搞怪分子”目前的社会处境。近日“,防止网上恶搞成风”的呼声,似乎一夜间将这种文化对立推在人们面前。与此同时,有媒体报道,广电总局也正在制订互联网视频的新管理条例,而针对网上搞怪和恶搞之风也是该条例判定的应有之意。当娱乐遭遇严肃,只能是互讨没趣。一个缺乏幽默感的氛围,难道就是我们所追求的文化乌托邦?恶搞究竟惊扰了谁?反对者认为,一些红色经典被解构,某些传统文化被颠覆,伤了中国人的民族感情,刺痛了人民对主流文化的骄傲情绪,在事实上也扰乱了社会正统的价值观。中国有个成语说,见怪不怪,其怪自败。说明传统中国就有过搞怪的人和搞怪的文化,这个成语告诉人们,如果你自认为主流,并觉得搞怪不能入你之法眼,不做理睬便罢——这也是聪明人对付搞怪行为的上策。文化多元化的社会里,人民的智慧需要充分的尊重和宽容。在开放的互联网时代,也许我们更应该想想古人的治水之策,我们的先人们早就告诫,“堵”永远是下策。互联网确乎存在着许多弊端,需要加以盘整和矫正,但一刀切显然不是最好的办法。我们可以对某些恶搞的作品或行为提出不同的意见,一旦恶搞者违反了第三者的权利,也可以诉之于法律解决。但如果仅是一种娱乐,似也不必动辄就放到道德评判的高度横加讨伐。
One jokingly teased a joke, some laughing, but others slapped the face on the jester’s face - the current social situation of the “weirdo”. Recently, “to prevent online spoof” is the voice, it seems that overnight this culture will be pushed in front of people. In the meantime, some media reports said that SARFT is also formulating new regulations on Internet video. However, it is also the intention of the Ordinance to make decisions on the Internet for making funny and spoofful things. When entertainment serious, can only be mutual nonsense. An atmosphere of lack of sense of humor, is that we are pursuing the cultural utopia? What disturbing the prank? Opponents believe that some red classic deconstruction, some of the traditional culture was subverted, hurt the Chinese national feelings, sting People’s pride in the mainstream culture in fact disrupts the orthodox social values. There is an idiom in China that we can not blame it for its strangeness and self-defeat. This shows that there are funny people and funny culture in traditional China. This idiom tells people that if you think you are mainstream and think Funny can not get into your eyes, do not ignore them - it is also the best way for smart people to deal with strange behaviors . In a culturally diverse society, people’s wisdom requires full respect and tolerance. In the era of the Internet liberalization, perhaps we should even think about the water control measures of the ancients. Our predecessors have long warned that “blocking” will always be the best policy. There are indeed many drawbacks to the Internet that need to be consolidated and rectified, but clearly not the best solution. We can put forward different opinions on some spoof works or behaviors. Once a spoofer violates the rights of a third party, we can sue for legal settlement. However, if it is merely an entertainment, it may not be necessary to place a high degree of scrutiny on the basis of moral judgment.