There is such a picture "I am a person who has always been wrong to things, don't have any ideas", but in fact, the implication of this sentence is "I am aimed at you".
When I was young, I felt that people who are wrong about things are fair and a quality that a fair person should have; after a long time, I find that it doesn't seem to be, on the contrary, things that are wrong to people seem to have a little human touch.
is not right to people, that is, just discussing things in terms of facts, without considering the "human" factor. Wrong is wrong, right is right, we have to be reasonable, and don't tell me any feelings or attitudes. Looking at it this way, people who are right or wrong look like they are the "excellent qualities" of a "straight man of steel", because they seem to be always pursuing correctness and truth. If we put the picture in a young couple, the boy said to the girl, "Today, I was wrong with the person. It is true that you are wrong, and your girlfriend, Xiaomei, is right." Then welcome. He is either a big-eared guy, or he is single and happy.
corresponds to a word, which seems to have some derogatory meaning "not right to people". The so-called right or wrong person means that regardless of the person's good or bad, we only look at the right or wrong of the matter. The so-called right or wrong to people means that we don't care whether things are right or wrong, and we only look at people's good or bad.
Whether it is wrong to people or wrong to people, it is actually an extreme way of behavior. It is a life strategy we choose for the sake of being lazy, because as long as we choose one, we can feel recognized Knowing coordination will not contradict yourself. If you choose one, you have to abandon the other. The world is too complicated. If we have to think about which coping mode to use every time, it will be very brain-burning, and brain-burning will consume energy, but the working mode of our brain is to choose energy-saving methods as much as possible.
is not right to people. On the surface, it is a representative of impartiality, but in fact it is opportunism . If you only look at things,Regardless of the reason, no matter who, there will be some very absurd things. The gangster kills, and the soldier kills, and the same is killing. The gangster is endangering society and others; the soldier is defending his country and protecting you behind him. Regardless of whether you are a good person or a bad person, if you only consider whether what you are doing is in line with your approval, it is about equal to whether you and him have the same interests in this matter. On the surface of , things are the same, but people who do things have different original intentions and goals, and the future results will definitely be different. Just like the crazy running around in the street, and the doctor chasing the neurotic running around in the street, it's the same, but the truth is different.
is popular because it is not right for people because of his simple judgment standards, because he does not consider the past or the future, and only pays attention to the observable interests at the moment. There is no template for what is wrong with people, and it is difficult to operate, because human nature is difficult to understand, it is difficult to see people, and it is even more difficult to see people through. This matter depends on character and luck. The feeling of being wrong with people is nepotism and breaking the rules, but in fact, people who are wrong with people belong to the weak who are naive to human nature.
But, can you be wrong to everyone? No, because it is like this for everyone, you will fall into another trap-forming a party for private purposes. You can't extrapolate without a lower limit. The "people" who treat people wrongly can only be individuals, not a certain group. If it is a group, there will be a "bastard logic" of non-self races whose hearts must be different. Just like the "partisan struggle" of Ming Dynasty, I don’t care whether the strategy you are talking about is good or bad. Anyway, I have to oppose the other party’s point of view. The opponent’s person is the enemy. There is only one code of conduct for all parties-the party is the same against the different, this kind of internal friction , Such a powerful empire cannot withstand the loss, not to mention our personal, system collapse is inevitable. This may be an important reason for the resentment of "doing something wrong with people". Therefore, is not right with people. It cannot be a person in a group. A person with a certain label must be an individual. I don't want to go through fire and water for labels, I only want to go through fire and water for you.
So, ’s culprit for what is wrong with people lies in the fact that they can see people well,But who is right about people? You are wrong with people, but he is wrong with people, and the result is that you lose both people and things. Therefore, it is not so much a way of being in the world to treat people wrongly, as it is a desire: it hopes that people will retain their true qualities, because their true qualities are more reliable than interests and standpoints.
Maybe you say that it is too extreme for people to be wrong and wrong to people. We should be moderate, but what is moderate? The middle route? What is the difference between this and thin mud?
In this regard, I think of a rough proverb- talks to people and talks to ghosts. When you meet someone you can trust, you will be wrong; when you meet someone who can only exchange benefits, you will not be right. If you insist on today’s enemy, you can be tomorrow’s ally, and you don’t have eternal friends in front of your interests. That's it, don't think too much.
So, what is wrong with people and what is wrong with people, how do you choose?
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-