In the previous article, I mentioned this news, and some netizens sued Xinhua Dictionary, saying that this reference book insults women and does not respect the history of the country. For example, the interpretation of "Wako" means "ancient refers to Japan", and the historical charges of Wako are written off.
Some netizens sued "Xinhua Dictionary", questioning the improper definition of "**sex" in the dictionary.
In fact, the key problem is not that someone sues "Xinhua Dictionary", but why such a person who "rubs patriotic traffic" can make waves in society, one of the reasons is that some netizens lack knowledge. Second, as long as some people stand on the so-called moral high ground, they do not care whether they are right or wrong. You don't want to argue with certain people about right and wrong, there's no point, because these people don't care about right or wrong – of course, when arguing, he will emphasize that he is right.
In the "dictionary", for example, about words like "rape" and "kill", netizens don't care what words you use to make sentences, he just cares that you can't use words like "**kill" to make sentences, as long as you don't use them, whatever words you use to make sentences.
I don't have a "Xinhua Dictionary", only a "Modern Chinese Dictionary", like the "Modern Chinese Dictionary", you have to explain all the words that can form words, so words such as "**" are indispensable, because there are such words in society, you have to explain this word.
Also, I'll digress a bit. The reason why online violence happens in society is not because of the existence of the Internet - when there is no Internet, it can be called "community violence", newspaper violence, street language violence, and so on. The Internet is just a tool, as long as some people want to violence others, does it matter what tools they use?
Internet violence, in essence, is that netizens do not want to know the truth of a thing. For some netizens, the truth is not important, the important thing is that "I" stand on the moral high ground and can criticize others. "I" think that he is not doing it right, and I have to criticize. As for whether what "I" do on my own is ethical, that's my own business. Anyway, as long as my immoral violations are not exposed, then I am moral now—and I can always be moral.
For some netizens, do the facts matter? Unimportant.
The current literary and artistic works about online violence only criticize online violence, and do not think about the various mentalities of people behind online violence.