查看: 2476|回复: 5

【必看】【转载】自我催眠的受害者作者：拉惹柏特拉（Raja Petra Kamarudin）

86 主题	5 好友	6828 积分

版主

Rank: 70

发消息

电梯直达

1^#

发表于 2012-5-11 11:50 AM |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 zacisme 于 2012-5-13 12:03 AM 编辑

由于太喜欢这篇文章，所以小弟不才，自己翻译，有错的话麻烦通知

Say you go to the mosque every day. You go at 5.00am, from 7.00-9.00pm, and sometimes even at lunchtime and teatime, and for sure you will go for your Friday prayers. You will certainly mix and interact with the congregation, maybe even visit each other on Hari Raya, and sometimes socialise as well, plus maybe do an Umrah trip together with the entire family.
打个比方，你天天都会去回教堂，凌晨五点一次然后晚上七点到九点之间又一次，有时甚至在午餐时间或下午茶时间也抽空去回教堂，当然你也一定会去星期五的祈祷。
在回教堂的时候你一定会和别人沟通交流，甚至在新年的时候探访对方，也许还会一起去朝圣。

Amongst all that, you would talk, discuss, debate, maybe even argue, about matters of mutual interest and concern. Sometimes you may share the same opinion and sometimes you may disagree. Sometimes one side gets swayed by the other side and opinions change or get watered down.
很多时候，对于彼此关心和感兴趣的东西你们会交谈，辩论甚至争论。有时候你们可能意见相同有时候却不认可对方，在交流的过程中你可能意识到新的东西而改变你固有的看法或者对以前的一些认知有更深入的了解。

After, say, five years, you would have formed a sort of comradeship and would most likely agree on most matters. Five years of interaction and communication does that to people. If you had found the people in that mosque insulting and their opinions revolting, you would have long ago abandoned that mosque and would have moved on. The fact you stayed meant that there were some things in common that you share.
久而久之，比如说五年，这之间你们的互动沟通基本让上你们变成了“同志”无所不谈也志趣相投。如果你发现那间回教堂的人和你意见相左，你早就会去别的回教堂。。。而你之所以会继续来这间回教堂其实也就因为你们之间有共同的话题。

Say you go to the pub every day after work. You practically live in the pub and there was many a time when the pub owner had to request that you all leave and go home because he or she needs to close up and allow the staff to go home.
打个比方，你天天下班后都会去酒吧。很多时候为了让酒吧员工可以打烊休息，酒吧老板不得不要求你们离开

The pub is almost like your second home, just like the mosque goers above that I talked about. The other pub patrons are almost like family. You share stories. You discuss issues. You debate and even argue. There were even times when some of these sessions ended up in fisticuffs when the debates became too hot and too many glasses of beer had passed over the counter.
酒吧就像是你的第二个家，就像我之前提过的回教堂。其他的酒客就类似你的家人，你们会彼此分享各自的故事，讨论时事，辩论真挚争吵。喝得醉醺醺的时候加上话题越超越热很多时候就会有人打架闹事。

Some of the pub kaki who did not like the discussions and who did not agree with the opinions being expressed have all since left. After a few arguments, and one that even ended in blows, they left and never came back. They are now ‘members’ of another pub down the road or in another part of the neighbourhood. Those who still patronise this pub over the last ten years or so are basically all birds of a feather. If not their feathers would have been plucked out by now.
一些不喜欢讨论这些话题或者本身不认同你们观点的，在经过几次争吵和殴斗后都走光了，去别的酒吧喝酒。那些十年来都只在同一间酒吧的酒客基本上彼此的观点都是一样的，就算一开始不认同彼此，十年的时间也让彼此同化了。

Now, try to visualise the sentiments of the mosque congregation that I talked about. Then try to visualise the sentiments of the pub kaki above. Say, if I were to assemble all the mosque chaps and the pub crowd in one hall. Then I propose a subject for debate. Say the subject I propose is about implementing Islamic laws in Malaysia. What do you think we are going to see?
尝试想像这是一种什么画面？如果我把以上提到这两批人集合在一起让他们辩论，而辩题就是在马来西亚实施回教法。

I do not tell you which group is from the mosque and which group is from the pub (for the sake of this ‘experiment’ let us just say they are all Malays). However, from the way the debate is going and from what is being said, you can tell which group is the mosque goers and which group is the pub kaki.
（这个实验内所有人都是马来人

）我不会告诉你那一批人是回教徒或酒客，可是在辩论的过程中你就会知道谁是属于虔诚的回教徒，而谁又是酒吧常客。

When Malaysia Today was first launched eight years ago, it was quite a mixed bag of readers. However, over time, a certain group of people have dominated Malaysia Today. And it is these people who also dominated the comments section in Malaysia Today.
八年前malaysia today刚成立的时候，这里的读者来自各种不同的背景，彼此有不同的认同，可是随着时间流逝。。。渐渐有一批人占据了这个部落格，也占据了malaysia today的意见箱。

Those who do not agree with what the readers of Malaysia Today have to say or do not agree with the views of the writers whose articles get posted in Malaysia Today have all since left. They no longer visit Malaysia Today or read what is posted in Malaysia Today. It is like the scenario of the mosque and pub that I mentioned above. Those who don’t like what they hear have all moved on. Those who remain are mostly birds of a feather.
那些不认同malaysia today立场，或者不认同malaysia today读者所发表的意见的读者也已经走光了就跟我上面提到的例子一样，继续呆下来的通常都是属于同一个群体的。

The people in that hypothetical mosque above imagine that they represent the majority view. And that is because they all speak the same language. The people in that hypothetical pub above also imagine that they represent the majority view. And that is because they, too, all speak the same language. And the same goes for the readers of Malaysia Today, or at least those readers who comment in Malaysia Today. They, too, imagine that they represent the majority view. And that is because they all speak the same language as well.
那些在相同回教堂祷告的人，由于完全没有任何反对声音而觉得他们的意见就代表了普罗大众的意见。而同一间酒吧的客人也不自觉的以为他们的想法就是大部分人民的想法
而malaysia today的读者，或者那些时常留言的读者也觉得他们的想法代表大部分人的想法。。。这完全是因为他们彼此的想法是一样的，所以没人反对，所以有这种假象

But are we really the majority view? Or are we victims of our own propaganda?
可是我们所认同的，真的就是大部分人民所认同的吗？还是我们其实是被自己催眠了？

I do not know how many people turned out for the Bersih 3.0 rally on 28th April 2012. The estimates vary from as low as 25,000 to as high as 300,000. Let us, for argument’s sake, just put the figure at 150,000, plus-minus 50,000. And you say that this means the majority of Malaysians support electoral reforms.
我不清楚到底有多少人出席了4月28好的净选盟集会，人数估计在两万五千到三十万人之间，我们就用十五万吧，然后你们就很肯定地说，大部分马来西亚人民支持选举改革。

Now, there are 16-17 million eligible voters in Malaysia. How do you justify 150,000 as representative of the majority view of 16-17 million voters? Are we kidding ourselves?
现在在马来西亚有投票资格的选民人数在一千六百万到一千七百万之间，你们是怎么这么确定15万人反映了一千六百万选民内大部分人的意见？开什么玩笑？？

Okay, you may argue that the majority of those who comment in Malaysia Today reflect this majority view. How many comments are we talking about? 100? 200? We are talking about 100-200 comments amongst a readership of 500,000-750,000. At its lowest, Malaysia Today receives 500,000 unique visitors a month. The highest is 750,000. During elections or by-elections, it spirals to one million, at least for those few weeks (so does Malayskini and all those others).
ok，你可能会说在malaysia today里的留言反映了大部分人的意见，那请问你是在说多少则留言呢？100个？200个？现在我们每个月至少有五十万到七十五万之间的访客，而在选举期间和补选期间更高达一百万人，而这寥寥几则回复真的能代表大部分人的意见吗？

In that same context, can 150,000 marchers really be said to reflect the sentiments of 16-17 million eligible Malaysian voters? Note that about 4 million of those 16-17 million did not even register to vote. Hence we can assume that they do not care a damn about what happens to Malaysia. And the higher percentage of those who did not register is non-Malays, according to the statistics recently released.
那么根据同样的概念，十五万名集会人士真的能反应出国内一千六百万合格选民的观点吗？在此请先注意，当中的四百万人甚至还没注册选民，所以我们可以当做他们更本就不管马来西亚会变得怎么样。。。而根据最新的数据，未注册选民中非巫裔的百分比比较高。

Okay, so at least 12-13 million or so ‘concerned’ Malaysians have registered to vote even if another 4 million did not bother to do so. But will all this 12-13 million actually vote? I suspect that another 4 million of those registered voters will not be voting in the coming general election. Only 8-9 million will be voting. Hence a total of about 8 million eligible voters do not care a damn what happens to Malaysia. That is almost 50% of the eligible voters.
好，那么就算有四百万合格选民没有注册，至少还有一千两百玩关心国家的选民，可是所有已注册选民就一定会投票吗？我想信其中只有八到九百万选民会真的去投票，其中的四百万不打算投票的已注册选民加上四百万未注册选民就几乎占了一半国内合格选民的比例。

Before we celebrate our ‘success’ and declare that we have ‘won’ and that we represent the majority view, take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Do we really represent the majority view? What formula have we applied to come to that conclusion? Because 100 or 200 people who comment in Malaysia Today say so? Because 150,000 people who marched on the streets on 28th April 2012 say so?
在我们欢呼和庆祝我们已经成功了而且我们也代表了大部分人的意见之前，稍微冷静一下想想，我们真的代表了大部分人民的意见吗？我们到底是根据了什么指标什么方程式达致了以上的结论？就因为那一两百则在malaysia today的回复？就因为4月28日聚集在大街上的十五万名集会人士？

I detect that the level of over-confidence plus the level of arrogance demonstrated by those 100 or 200 who comment in Malaysia Today has increased a lot. And this is because they are of the opinion that they have already won? Won what? What is it that you have won?
通过那一两百则在malaysia today的回复，我察觉到那些写下回复的网民基于集会成功而显得过分自信，嚣张跋扈，可问题是你赢了吗？赢了什么？

Those people in that mosque feel that all Malaysians are ready for Malaysia to be turned into an Islamic State because everyone in their congregation expresses the same views. Then, when we put them in the same hall as the group from the pub, they suddenly realise that their view is not really the majority view after all.
那些在回教堂的人们觉得所有马来西亚人民都准备好让马来西亚变成回教国，因为他们彼此的意向都是一样的，可当你把他们和酒吧的顾客群放在一起，他们才会突然醒觉到原来他们所认同的，并不代表大部分人的意见。

Even those 150,000 Malaysians who marched on the streets on 28th April 2012 do not share the same view. Some were there for glamour purposes -- it is ‘cool’ to march in the Bersih rally. Some just joined the gang -- since their gang wanted to go so they went as well. Some were genuine about wanting to see electoral reforms. Some were not even registered to vote or too young to vote. Some went because they are members of a political party and their party instructed them to go so they went -- if their party was not involved and it was a purely Bersih affair they would not have bothered. Some went just to have some fun and to take some pictures. And some went because this was a great opportunity to run riot -- like after a football match in the UK where they riot for the fun of it even if their team won the match.
就算是那十五万上街集会的人士，也不尽然是基于同样的的理念而走上街头，有些人觉得很酷，有些人为了陪朋友，有些真的是想看见选举改革，有些连注册都还没去弄，有些政党人士是被党指示而去--如果只是纯粹的bersih，也许他们也不会想来吧。有些只是好奇，有些只是想拍些照片，有些觉得是个搞乱的好时机而走上街头--就好象英国足球比赛之后，就算他们所支持的球队赢了足球流氓还是会捣乱。

Hence, whenever we talk or when we post comments, take note that not all share our sentiments. And if we demonstrate arrogance because we imagine that everyone is with us it may create more harm than good.
所以，每当我们交谈或者留言的时候，谨记并不是所有人都会分享自己的意见，而如果我自以为是的觉得大家的想法都跟我们相同而态度轻佻嚣张的话，您的回复也许会弄巧反拙。

Take the Tunku Aziz matter as one example. Do you think everyone is of your view that he must be punished for not toeing the party line? 100 or 200 of you commented so. But what about the more than 500,000 other Malaysia Today readers who did not comment at all? They just read and kept quiet. They said nothing.
就拿tunku阿兹反对净选盟事件为例子，你觉得所有人都跟你一样认为他因为跟党立场不同而应该被惩罚？那一两百则留言一面倒的显示这种看法，那么其他五十万名没任何回复的malaysia today读者呢？他们看了却没说什么。。。

What do you think they are thinking? You don’t know because they are not telling you. And how many of the 500,000-750,000 Malaysia Today readers who used to support DAP will now no longer do so because they do not like what you are saying or doing with regards to the Tunku Aziz issue?
你不会知道他们在想什么因为他们并没有告诉你，而在那五十到七十五万读者之中又有多少个是因为你们对tunku阿兹的态度而不再支持行动党呢？

You want freedom of speech you go it. But as I always said, freedom of speech is like a knife. In the wrong hands it can kill. And sometimes what you say reflects the double standards that you apply. Look at the following comment:
你们要言论自由，可就像我常说的，言论自由就像一把刀，一错手就可能酿成意外，而有时候你们的回复完全显示了你们的双重标准，比如以下的回复：

This will cause massive traffic jams and snarl the city. Total inconvenience for the people but does UMNO care? Businesses all over Puchong will be badly affected. Is it a coincidence that most of these traders are Chinese? -- comment by Bourne (in the article: Motorists urged to avoid roads around Bukit Jalil Stadium Friday to Sunday)
这会造成严重的交通阻塞，蒲种的人民会严重受影响可是巫统会在乎吗？巧合的是大部分的店家都是华人吧？-- Bourne的留言（在一篇文章：驾车人士请在星期五到星期天避开武吉佳里尔体育馆周边的路段）

Remember when some people opposed the Bersih 3.0 rally on the streets and suggested that it be held in the stadium instead? They also used the same argument as ‘Bourne’ did. And the Indian traders also raised the issue of disruption to businesses.
你还记得一些反对净选盟的人士用和bourne一样的理由认为净选盟应该移师到体育馆举行而不是在街上集会，一些印裔商家也申诉生意会受影响吗？

Your response was that it was a stupid excuse. You also whacked the entire Mamak community because a few Indian traders pointed out that rallies and road closures affect their business. Your response is to curse, mock, insult and make racial slurs about Indian Muslims although not all Indian traders in the city centre are Muslims.
你们的反应是：这是一个愚蠢的借口，你们也因为几个印裔商家申诉生意会被集会封路影响而针对整个印裔回教社群发表了诅咒羞辱和种族性言论，尽管并不是所有在市区的印裔商家都是回教徒。

Then there is this comment:
然后这个回复

Fart Fart Wah, don't expect so much from him. Remember the mystery of his going on study leave while still holding the post of IGP? -- commment by bapalah ( in the article: Hanif: Let them say what they want)
fart fart wah，不要对他期望太高，还记得他在全国总警长任期内的神秘进修假期吗？ -- bapalah的留言（在一篇文章：韩聂夫：他们要怎么说由他们去）

Can you see how, as the Malays would say, sedap cakap saja? You just shoot off your mouth without even knowing the real story. In short, you are lying and misleading. You are just trying to generate hate.
你现在可以看到，就像马来人常说的的：耍嘴皮子吗？一些人在不知道真相的情况下随便回复。简单来说，他们在撒谎，误导，甚至是企图制造憎恨。

Tun Hanif was then the IGP and his Deputy was Tan Sri Amin. But Tan Sri Amin was older that Tun Hanif. Hence he would never make IGP. He would retire as Deputy IGP. So Tun Hanif took a one-year sabbatical to do law in the UK so that Tan Sri Amin could take over as Acting IGP. This was because the Deputy Prime Minister, Musa Hitam, would not allow Tun Hanif to resign to make way for his Deputy to take over.
敦韩聂夫是当时的全国总警长，而他的副手就是丹斯里阿敏。可是由于丹斯里阿敏的年纪比敦韩聂夫大，所以他永远都当不了总警长，所以敦韩聂夫拿了一年的假期到英国进修法律以让丹斯里阿敏做代总警长。这主要是因为时任副首相慕沙希淡不让敦韩聂夫辞职。

It was actually a noble gesture. Tun Hanif wanted to retire to make way for Tan Sri Amin but the Deputy PM would not allow him to do so. So Tun Hanif took one-year leave without pay to enable his Deputy to at least become the Acting IGP for a year. That means Tan Sri Aman can retire with an IGP’s pension.
这个其实是个伟大的举动，敦哈聂夫为了让丹斯里阿敏当上总警长而想提早退休可是副首相却不让他这么做，所以敦哈聂夫拿了一年的无薪假期来让他的副手能至少成为代总警长达一年，这意谓了丹斯里阿敏能享有总警长待遇的退休金。

How many people would do this? Hence credit should be given where credit is due. And even if you do not like that person you should not lie about him or her. And the 100 or 200 of you who comment in Malaysia Today, which is read by more than 500,000 other people who do not say anything, may actually be hurting your cause. You may actually be the cause of DAP or the opposition losing quite a number of votes. And, unless this is really what you are trying to do, be warned or else the day after Polling Day you are going to have to read another “I told you so” article from me.
在座有几个人能做出这样子的决定呢？就算你不喜欢这个人你也不应该故意撒谎贬低他，有做对的地方就应该称赞。至于那些在malaysia today留下一到两百则回复已经被至少五十多万人阅读过的读者，你可能是造成行动党甚至反对党失去票数的原因之一，除非这就是你的目的。。。否则你最好稍微控制一下自己要不然你就会在投票日隔天看到我的新帖子：我早就告诉你了。