Yao Yan looked at the captain's skull.

The moment when the Skull Rishou met Yao Yan's sight, he also realized what he meant.

"I am a journalist and was killed while resisting my colleagues creating false history,"

His voice was low but no ups and downs, and he seemed quite calm.

"I was killed for creating false history?"

The black arm's voice was smiling, as if it was just a joke.

Lishu glanced at him, but there was no reaction.

Yao Yan also glanced at him and said nothing.

It's a good material for rumor.

Just why do you say this in front of others?

Presuppose that “his actions are not irrational behaviors that are affected by emotions” and “his actions are purposeful”—

Under this premise, why did he do this?

Is it because his behavior will not be cared about?

The most common thing is to use jokes and "entertainment" to eliminate the seriousness of a thing.

In his lifetime, such things happened countless times.

Even this behavior itself has been eliminated and become part of a phenomenon.

It is called "meme".

However, at this time, the sound of the skull split sounded:

"At that time, in the magazine where I worked, an article mentioned a war that happened between the three countries three or four hundred years ago."

"The staff of my magazine describe the recovery of territory by the invaded states in this war as 'territorial increase'."

“The territory increased?”

This sentence made Black Wrist repeat.

"Well, I objected at that time, because, legally, this territory belongs to this invaded country."

Territory recovery has become territory increase?

"However, the other party rejected my opinion and used 'add' as a neutral word, an objective description, and there was no problem."

Hearing this, Yao Yan felt that he might have smiled, but it was a pity that he was not in any mood.

"Then, he also wrote a sentence."

"The increase and decrease of territorial territory of feudal countries is more objective than recovery and aggression."

"And the invading state that initiated the war occupied the territory, which was also described as 'territorial increase', and the land retaken by the other side was described as 'territorial decrease'."

The sound of the skull splitting has no ups and downs:

"When I made an opinion again and believed that such a description was not objective, the other party rejected my opinion again and said, "This is an objective description. The territory of this country was also robbed five or six hundred years ago. Other countries robbed it. What's the problem? "

Yao Yan is so familiar with these words.

Classic lines of historical nihilism.

He met many times during his lifetime.

A country acquires territory through violent annexation does not mean that it acquires legality while obtaining territory.

There is no basic knowledge of international relations and political legitimacy, these legal rights.

After a country seizes territory, there will be a process of legalizing rule.

In a way that is familiar to ordinary people, it is "digestion".

What you grab is not yours, what you eat into your mouth is not yours, what you digest is yours.

Only historical nihilists, and quite superficial historical nihilists, would describe history using a method that "everyone can grab it, yours will also grab it" without basic knowledge of political science.

"Winners take all, victory is legitimacy" has fewer loopholes than the former.

But it's just a little less.

In the world where he lives, the most important thing about territorial law is international conventions and agreements between countries.

After a certain world war, intercontinental war, and the signing of the treaty after victory, the territorial law was transferred and solidified.

One country and another country obtain legal transfer and solidification through the signing of the treaty.

Without such a treaty agreement, then there will be no legal right to rule unless the ruling regime has been destroyed and weakened.

Many people like to use property possession, or even look at the issue of territory instead of looking at property ownership.

There is a saying that many people have heard of—

Big things turn into small things.

Or "fade".

Invasion, expansion, and recovery all increase territory.

Yes, when ownership and territorial law are aside, territorial territory is increased.

By putting aside facts and talking about definitions, many people without relevant knowledge can be pulled into a trap.

Yaoyan should not be too familiar with this kind of operation.

However, his memory, Yao Yan during his lifetime, was generally following the dialectical materialism approach. This kind of historical nihilistic way of thinking could not even fool him during his lifetime, let alone him now.

This trick, when you use it actively, there is also a word-

Change the concept.

People are familiar with the word "stolen concepts", but they are also vague. Without being pointed out, they do not realize that anything has been stolen concepts.

The culprit is the vague judgment mechanism, the human body efficiency machine.

When you meet someone who likes to describe it as "exactly the same", you must examine it carefully.

Otherwise, the words that invade and regain, which have the common point of "territorial increase", can be replaced quietly.

The key issues such as the belonging of legal principles, legitimacy, and legitimacy will be quietly blurred and even forgotten.

After these judgment criteria related to values ​​are blurred and information is missing, the judgments made by people will be greatly affected.

For xx to invade xx, people will subconsciously be hostile to the former.

As for the increase of xx territory and the decrease of xx territory, such a descent will quickly weaken people's tendency.

If you separate them and cut them into two sections to describe them separately, people cannot even realize who has obtained the territory from whom at the first time.

Even professionals.

Even if you have some understanding of semantic pragmatism, you often don’t realize this kind of method of talking about definition by putting aside reality.

People know whether a word is defined as a neutral word or a positive or negative word.

However, if neutral words are used to replace certain words, this seemingly objective behavior is itself a problem.

This word is used here, and it has a legal basis, but it is not expressed in clear sentences.

People do not realize this hidden premise and cannot sensitively detect that the concept has been stolen.

This is a problem that Yao Yan himself cannot avoid.

However.....

He didn't know what the truth was-

This is a description of the cleft.

He didn't know if the cleft was true.

We must try to avoid the judgment impact of the "primary effect".

Oh, it can also be called the first impression, preconceived.

At this time, the sound of the skull split continued to sound:

"Then, I was fired."

ps: After watching a few key policies, I feel that many people lack some basic knowledge.

How to say it? In college, I was a debate club. This trick was very useful in a debate competition. If the opponent's debater didn't notice it, it would be very useful.

Of course, the best trick in a debate competition is to seize the pain points and bring the other party to your own pace.

Don’t respond to the other party’s questions directly, or do operations that seem to be responsive but quickly bypass them.

The core of the debates that occur on the Internet is often not about reasoning, but about winning or losing.

As long as you win, onlookers will often follow the winner's logic to crush the loser.

And in philosophy, it is also true to some extent.

According to my superficial understanding, different philosophies often follow different logics.

Oh, just a superficial metaphor. "Logic" itself is also a philosophy.

Of course, this is an inaccurate description, with more specific differences, and it cannot be applied to all. I don’t even know the scope of this statement and how many types of philosophy it can apply to.
Chapter completed!