發文作者:kahoo | 四月 2, 2008

倪匡: 長相歧視

人的長相, 不由自己控制(通過外科手術改變容貌者別論),所以不應該評論、攻擊、揶揄、歧視……不然,就是人身攻擊,被普遍視作不道德行為。

 

可是一個人的長相如何,確實影響一個人的命運,古今中外,都有不少實例可循。很容易回答的一個問題:俊美的和醜陋的去辦同一件事,何者更易成功?

容貌歧視,人們都不放在面子上,而深藏於心中。當面顯露出來的態度和心中所想的,可以截然相反。所以從表面看來,好像並不存在這種歧視,其實,這種歧視,
深入人心。連古人都說「雖無過犯,面目可憎」,「面目可憎」不是罪,可就是令人憎,真是冤枉。

由於再「面目可憎」,可是看得久了,也慢慢會習慣,而自己看自己的時間最久,所以人對自己的長相,評價自然也最高,很少人會覺得自己「可憎」的,於是本來 有一些動作、一些表情,可以大大減少天然的可憎程度的,就被忽略了。更有甚者,有一些神情舉止,增添可憎程度的,都被誇張使用,頗有慘不忍睹之效果。


當然,那是感到「慘不忍睹」者的不是處,可是人家確然有這樣的感覺,似乎也無法干涉他人內政,長相「抱歉」者,多一點自律,於人於己,都是好事。

是普通人,問題不大;看見一些頻頻出鏡的大人物,長相有異於常人者,再加上沒有自知之明,真是一種視覺污染,看多了,絕對影響身心健康。

說到底,還是歧視!

是的,不過歧視的不是長相,是有如此長相者的言和行。


有這樣的言和行,那是招人來歧視他,若不歧視,豈非辜負了他的一番苦心?


大家若因此歧視我,我沒有意見。


Source: Apple Daily


Responses

  1. All that glisters is not gold.

    (The Merchant of Venice)

  2. 面懵心精, 扮豬食老虎.

    乜野係天才, 乜野係白痴. 

  3. 中新網1月3日電 根據加拿大一項對自己吸引力的民調顯示,加拿大人自認雖不如電影明星那樣有吸引力,但對自己的長相還是比較滿意的。

    據“中央社”報導,這項由加拿大通訊社和哈里斯─迪塞瑪民調公司共同主持的民調以十分為最高標準。在接受訪問的一千多人中,加拿大人對自己長相滿意度的平均分數為六點七分;百分之二十五的加拿大人給自己長相打七分,百分之十八的受訪者打五分,另有三分之一的加拿大人給自己長相打八分或更高。

    調查中發現,有相當大的一批加拿大人每天在照鏡子上花費大量時間,而這些人中大多數是男人。根據上述調查,百分之八的受訪者,相當于全國超過五十萬人,給自己長相滿意度打滿分十分,而這部份人士中,男性占三分之二。

    另外,加拿大人對他們伴侶長相的評分比自己要高。百分之十九的受訪者為他們伴侶打的分數為十分。三分之一將自己伴侶長相打成滿分的都是女性。平均而言,加拿大男性對女伴侶的評分為八點二分,女性為男伴侶的評分則為七點七分。

    民調還發現,大多數加拿大人不認為年歲會為自己長相帶來負面影響。當他們被問到,十年後長相會有什麼變化的問題時,絕大多數的答案都是“不會有任何影響。”

  4. 用外表評分人家的人, 是有著老懵懂病態.

  5. 蘿蔔頭, 泡菜, 鬼佬, 賓妹, 阿差, 黑鬼, 阿燦, 台灣土佬, 加燦, 港燦等, 本來無貶義, 後來卻漸漸變成有貶義及歧視.

  6. 形容中國奧運火炬交接儀式是在“精心炮製﹐保安嚴密”的儀式下在北京進行﹐中國奧運受到“不斷增加的國際人物抵制﹐包括德國的angela merkel”﹐然後用詛咒的口氣繼續說“火炬接力儀式不會順利﹐大型遊行示威已經在倫敦和巴黎迎接中國的火炬”。

    Email: letters@macleans.ca
    Phone: 416-764-1706

  7. please…. if you were to give a link, then please give a link to the content in question, i.e. what i am doing is so… so… wrong:

    http://royho.wordpress.com/

  8. 以貌取人, 失之子羽.

  9. 馬英九贏其中一大原因是他個人的魅力和長相.

  10. Dear Mr. or Ms. Editor of Maclean’s,

    As a financial research analyst working in a Canadian company, I have to ensure the accuracy of information in our publication before they are sent out to clients. Any misleading and inaccurate message is the least thing we want, since it will only result in downgrading our reputation and credibility in our clients. If we lost our clients’ trust, how could we survive?

    Similar to my industry, I think you will agree that the credibility is also crucial to the media industry. However, as a regular Maclean’s reader, I’m extremely disappointed on the way you have reported the story on the Tibet riot and started to suspect the professional integrity and the standard of work ethics Maclean’s has. The reasons are as listed below. If you disagree anything I said or listed, please let me know; as an analyst, I’m totally open to the free discussion and communication, which I think is the only way to the mutual understanding and respect. However, if you agree most of what I listed below makes sense to you, I’m looking forward to a sincere apology announced publicly on your website and in your next issue. To make my points clear and easy to understand, I did comparative analysis based on the way in which Maclean’s reported that story and the Code of Ethics for a professional journalist referred from the Society of Professional Journalists (website address: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp).

    First, please allow me write down part of the Code of Ethics for a professional journalist referred from the Society of Professional Journalists: As a basic rule, the Journalists should Seek Truth and Report It. Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

    Journalists should:

    1. Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.

    2. Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.

    3. Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

    4. Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.

    5. Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

    6. Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.

    Then, please allow me analyze what Codes Maclean’s has violated: Okay, let’s talk about the cover page on the latest Maclean’s magazine: a huge vivid and shocking picture “a policeman is chasing and hitting a monk” with a big catchy title “’Butchers and monsters – Things we can never forget about Communist China”. With or without the small label illustration at the right corner, Nobody will deny that this cover clearly send out a strong message, exactly as your title said, “Look: How brutal and immoral China is now! It is a monster and is killing innocent monks now. ” Regarding to the cover page, the reasons for Maclean’s violation of the Journalist Code described above are as following.

    1) Misrepresenting and Misleading: Big catchy picture and title with small label is very likely to give audiences’ impression that “the police was a Chinese police” and “Chinese Government is hurting unarmed demonstrators”, neither of which is true based on this cover page, since the police in the picture is not a Chinese and it was Nepal’s police hurting monks not Chinese government. Clearly, the cover page has strong misleading messages. If Maclean’s does not have clear evidence to show the message, then just do not use this one because “Deliberate distortion is never permissible for a journalist.”

    2) Manipulation: I would like to say something about the corner label. People will not deny that comparing to the big picture and title, the corner label illustration is just so minuscule and unnoticeable. It only makes audiences feel nothing but Maclean’s sneakiness, dishonest and manipulation of news. People are not fool; the purpose of small label is too obvious.

    3) Stereotyping: That “Things we can never forget about Communist China” is stereotyping current China as the old one with negative images which have been created by media among the western society over years. Maclean’s ignored to recognize any improvement in terms of freedom and democracy in China and did not fulfill its due diligence of researching what currently happened in China. It is not fair, objective, accurate and professional to show this stereotyping statement on the cover page only based on the “misleading” picture.

    Okay, now let’s talk about the report itself. The subtitle of the report is “The brutality in Tibet is no surprise. Communist China will never change”. Obviously, all of the discussion of the report was built up on the author’s a**umption that Chinese Government has used force to repress the peaceful demonstrators. However, the whole report was only based on the “misleading cove page picture” and “the history of Chinese repression” of the author’s thought, without giving audiences any clear evidence (either in photo or video) of “repression of demonstrators in Tibet from Chinese government”. Don’t mention that the author totally ignored any photos showing that the violence of Tibet came from the demonstrators, any articles written by the foreign Australian and Canadian tourists and any appeal made by the victims or the family of the dead. All of photos, videos, and witnesses’ reports clearly illustrated two critical points in this Tibet riot which are against the Maclean’s report’s a**umption:

    1) The “peaceful” demonstrators were not peaceful. They were firing shops, beating random pa**engers and even killing innocent people.

    2) The Chinese government did restrain its action during this riot and there is no evidence so far showing the government being a“butcher” or “monster” to the demonstrators. All pictures show how the police put out the fire, helped the wounds and restrained themselves to the violent demonstrators.

    I really do not understand why Maclean’s and the author totally ignore these evidences. Is that because they are all against your view? Otherwise, it might be because of the constraints from both language barrier and the ability of research for Maclean’s and the author. According to the Code of Journalist, the author did not do his due diligence to seek the truth, did not illustrate its argument objectively and fairly, and did not even have any clear, accurate, and convincing evidence of the starting point of his argument. This only makes audiences deeply doubt the capability and credibility of the author being as a journalist, which negatively affects Maclean’s reputation as well.

    Given my comparative analysis, the only conclusion I could make is that, as a leading influential media in Canada and even in North America, Maclean’s did not have any accurate and credible evidence to back up its messages “China is a Bucher and Monster; they did brutal repression on Tibet unarmed demonstrators”, proving a fact that Maclean’s did not remain being fair, accurate, objective, due diligent, credible and professional by manipulating and misrepresenting the inappropriate pictures and arguments to mislead the audiences in its report of Tibet riot.

    Finally, as the Codes said, “Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility”, I believe, by keeping open mind to listening different voices and honestly and fairly doing its due diligence, Maclean’s will find its both Professional Integrity and Credibility back.

    I am sincerely looking forward your response and deeply appreciate your attention to this long letter.

    Best regards,

    Ellen He

    http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/thread-340-1-1.html

  11. 為何家豪沒有在這裏宣傳蘇博士昨天到143o做嘉賓呢?害我只聽了最後的五分鐘,(因為要聽鄭敬基。)蘇博士更只說了幾句話就散場。家豪你真是……

  12. 倪 匡 說 , 曾 經 寫 過 一 本 名 《 一 個 地 方 》 的 書 。 書 中 那 地 方 沒 求 知 欲 , 只 有 快 快 樂 樂 過 日 子 , 吃 飽 便 睡 , 睡 飽 又 吃 , 沒 有 欲 望 , 那 是 他 心 目 中 的 天 堂 。

  13. 你咁講即係假設家豪事先知道博士會出現於1430啫,或者家豪事先唔知道呢,而且呢度有冇必要為1430宣傳先,聽少一次博士講野冇所謂,買份明報周一至五都睇到博士專欄喇。

  14. 倪匡經常提及的一個笑話:

    話說一個食人部落的領袖,不服別人批評他殘忍野蠻,於是派了很多子弟到哈佛、劍橋留學,多年後,這些留學子弟都西裝筆挺的回來,人家問食人部落領袖現在怎樣了?他說我們好進步了,用餐刀吃人肉。

  15. 蓮姐,我也只是說說而已,是我錯怪家豪好了。但妳會不會掉轉來說呢?專欄睇少日就冇所謂啫,但這次之後又不知什麼時候才聽到蘇博士的聲音了。

  16. 如果以為世界有地方絕對冇長相歧視嘅, 不而信呢個世界有聖誕老坑啦。

    有冇見過肥婆冇人事關而做到 CEO 吖? 或 nung 雞豆皮做公關吖? 矮仔做 company director 吖?


發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s

分類

%d 位部落客按了讚: