The police report the case of the infringement of female employees in Ali.
At the moment, the context has been revealed and there are still doubts, we can doubt, but don't presume to go first.
The long-disturbed "Ali female employee was violated" case, the latest report has been issued.
The report mentioned that the two male parties, Wang Mowen and Zhang, were suspected of compulsory indecent assault, and criminal compulsory measures have been taken in accordance with the law.
It also explained the reasons and time of Wang's 4 times in and out of the wife's Zhou's room, and sorted out the time points of Zhang's two forced obscenities.
It is worth noting that after the incident, many "civil Sherlock Holmes" went online one after another. Although there is only one objective truth, they have already made up 10,000 possibilities.
Even if the police made a report, many people began to speculate on the remaining doubts.
It is undeniable that the "respective expressions" of the various parties involved in the incident did leave a huge room for splicing and imagination.
When the self-consistent logic chain cannot be pieced together through fragmented information, people are accustomed to filling in the "factual gaps" with imagination.
Even if this is the case, not being partial to listening, not believing, not turning back, and not having to use brains to replace facts, it should be people's "surrounding quality."
For the moment, there have been a lot of debates in the public opinion field along with issues such as workplace sexual abuse and women's rights. If these disputes can be based on clear facts and lead to public discussions, it will naturally be a good thing.
But the fact is that too much frustration and tearing are all "facts" fights that start from their own brains. You say "men are not innocent, women are not simple", I said "you are engaging in the logic of the'perfect victim'." Eventually, it stirred up a pool of saliva and caused a lot of tears.
In this matter, everything should return to the fact-based and evidence-based framework: even if some doubts have not been clarified, the public should maintain the necessary restraint and start more from the definite facts that can be framed by the existing evidence. From this to discuss topics of public value, instead of using brain-filled lace plots to bias the focus, pull the focus from the case to the "melon love", and let the incident continue in the "Baobu and the PK of brain-buying" It only increases the ambiguity, and makes the bad violations quickly faded and even forgotten in the defocusing of public opinion.
In the final analysis, don't use your brain to add drama to the "Alibaba female employee being violated" case. Let the law belong to the law, and the prying into the details of the private domain is adequate. This is what public opinion should take on this matter.
Especially at the moment, when the context has been revealed and there are still doubts, we can have doubts, but don't presume to go first.
Otherwise, letting victims suffer secondary harm, drowning the "public foundation" of public incidents, letting incidents start from evil, and finally clamor, is also a waste of public issues and a squandering of opportunities for institutional improvement.
Chengdu Commercial Daily-Red Star News Special Commentator Zhong Ming