Foreword

Two days ago, Wang Zuozhongyou published an article titled "Chinese Is, in All Likelihood, Dead" on his WeChat public account of the same name. In that article, he listed a great many facts about the Chinese language that people find deeply repugnant, and then concluded that "Chinese is dead." But I don't agree. I believe this has nothing to do with the Chinese language itself, but rather with the people who use it. Elevating the issue to the level of the language itself is just his gimmick. What I want to criticize is people.

In that article, Wang Zuozhongyou argued that Chinese is dead from four angles: infantilization, hypersensitivity, loss of creativity, and verbosity. This article will also address these four angles, and based on the facts he cited, lay out my own views. However, just because I don't rebut him on certain points doesn't mean I agree with him—I simply want to talk about what I think matters more.

Infantile? Or Dehumanized?

When he opens by saying "Chinese is becoming increasingly infantile," I partly agree with him—that is, I too dislike unprofessional expression.

But compared to unprofessional expression, the phenomenon he mentions of "positive patients" being called "sheep" is, in my view, far more serious and something we must be vigilant about. Calling people "sheep" and women "ewes" is dehumanization. If more and more people accept and use this kind of language, the worst-case scenario might be that a terrible unspoken consensus gradually forms in people's minds: maybe we don't have to treat them as "people" anymore; maybe we can do whatever we want to them, because they're just "sheep," not "people."

I recall that many human tragedies in history have arisen from exactly this kind of thinking, though the only example I can currently recall is a similar story from Black Mirror, where soldiers' perception systems are altered so they can't see the true faces of those they kill. These soldiers believe they're slaughtering so-called "cockroaches," but in reality, they're killing living, breathing human beings just like themselves.

But is the above problem a problem with the Chinese language? No. It's a problem with people themselves. It's people who choose how to use Chinese, and it's people who, in their ignorance, shape dark thoughts.

Sensitive? Who's Sensitive?

Regarding the cases he cites, like the character "杀" (kill) being replaced with the symbol "▢" and the character "钱" (money) being abbreviated to its initial "q," I share his disgust. But I don't know what exactly he's disgusted by. What I'm disgusted by are those who censor and those who self-censor.

The reason this happens is not, as he says, because "Chinese has become increasingly sensitive," but because people have become sensitive, people have become afraid, and people have become increasingly devoid of moral bottom lines. Some worry about being punished for their words, while others worry that censorship isn't strict enough. Everyone is engaged in censorship and self-censorship (I've explained in detail the harms and causes of self-censorship in "Self-Censorship Is More Detestable Than Any Censorship").

This is not a problem with Chinese; it's a problem with people. Rather than shifting the blame onto the word "Chinese," we should point out the root of the problem directly and work to correct it with all our might, presenting every character openly and honestly.

Isn't This Creativity?

Wang Zuozhongyou lists a great many emerging internet words in his article, yet he says "Chinese is increasingly losing its creativity." So what are those new words he lists? Isn't that creativity itself?

So I think he's once again conflating Chinese with the people who use it. Is it words like "绝绝子" (absolutely amazing) that we dislike? No. As Ichinichi Sekai mentioned on Twitter, what we dislike is "sloppy, clichéd, herd-like writing." What we dislike are the people behind the careless use of these words.

So What If There's Verbosity?

He also mentions that "Chinese has more and more filler." He contrasts what he calls modern "textual garbage" with the classics of ancient literati, lamenting the past and bemoaning the present.

But I believe every era has its own content. There was surely garbage in ancient times, and there's no shortage of classics in the modern era. He's entitled to dislike it, and I can't say I like it either—it's a matter of personal taste, and it has nothing to do with whether Chinese is dead or not.

I Must Not Die

Everything I've discussed is based on what Wang Zuozhongyou cited, but he seems to place the focus of his criticism on the Chinese language. I believe Chinese has nothing to do with it—all of this is man-made.

I don't want to sigh in vain at the Chinese language; that's useless. I want to warn myself, and perhaps also warn others, to maintain respect for Chinese, to maintain respect for ourselves and for others. The power of words is stronger than we imagine, and what words can represent is more than we imagine.

Wang Zuozhongyou says Chinese is dead. As a response, or rebuttal, to his article, I feel that something in my article should also die. Since I'm criticizing people, I'll say it's people who are dead. Because indeed, in a certain sense, those who use Chinese as poorly as described in Wang Zuozhongyou's article, though they are alive, might as well be dead.

Afterword

Written by Magneto on 2024/1/26. Back then, to comply with ICP filing requirements, I deleted some articles that might have been controversial. Looking back now, this article actually serves to awaken people and should not have been deleted. The links in the article are all dead, but I've kept them to show that citations were made. This article is a repost, not original content.