Hu Xijin recently posted that a German blogger's remarks about "advocating the legalization of marijuana" should be tolerated. This has aroused widespread attention and heated discussions. As an active public intellectual, Hu Xijin's remarks have a certain influence. His seemingly "enlightened" remarks were questioned and opposed by most netizens.
The foreign blogger's remarks about "advocating the legalization of marijuana" are not well received by the mainstream in China. The mainland has adopted a "zero tolerance" policy against drugs, which has become a national position. A foreigner who publicly expresses such views on Chinese social media will not be supported in reality, and may even cross the legal red line.
However, Hu Xijin proposed that this kind of remarks should be "tolerated", which will inevitably cause discomfort among some netizens. The blogger's claims are too absolute. She asserted that marijuana should be legalized simply on the grounds that "marijuana is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol", but in fact, the problem is far more complicated than she described. China has historically been ravaged by opium and is extremely sensitive to drugs.
To this day, all sectors of society are still investing a lot of resources in anti-drug education. The legalization of marijuana in some countries is also controversial, and its effects and consequences need to be observed over a long period of time, rather than conclusions should be drawn lightly. Therefore, her remarks will not be recognized in China, and Hu Xijin's suggestion that it should be "tolerated" is inevitably puzzling.
Most of the netizens' impression of Hu Xijin is that he loves "hype" and likes to express "different" opinions on hot issues. This remark is no exception, he magnifies an issue that has no room for discussion, and uses the word "inclusion" to attract attention, which is likely to create a topic.
If it was only done in good faith, a more appropriate wording should also be chosen, rather than using the controversial word "inclusive". So, what is the purpose of Hu Xijin's remarks? Perhaps it is to use the topic to attract traffic. to achieve an eye-catching effect. And hot topics can bring more attention and traffic to him, which may also be one of his considerations.
China is in a period of rapid change, and more new ideas and new things will emerge. Hu Xijin may hope that society will accept more exchanges and collisions of views, even if some views are not currently accepted by the mainstream, and should not be completely excluded. This may have been the starting point for his "inclusion", and of course, we don't know exactly what he intended in the first place, but his remarks did spark controversy.
As a public intellectual, when it comes to sensitive issues, you should be thoughtful and should not use language that can easily cause misunderstandings. In the face of obvious illegal remarks, we should still adopt a condemnatory attitude, should not be easily "tolerated", and should not deliberately create controversy for the purpose of attracting traffic.
A country's laws and public opinion need to be formed in long-term practice. Complex issues should not be lightly voiced or advocated. Of course, public intellectuals have the freedom to express their opinions, but they should also be responsible for their own speech, and must not mislead society or cause unrest.
As a senior media person, Hu Xijin should understand his social responsibility as a public figure. I hope that he will examine his remarks in the future and play a positive role in social progress. It is recommended to learn to be cautious in words and deeds, and not to dance on the edge of the bottom line under the banner of freedom of speech!