小編快報
《柏林脈動》(The Berlin Pulse) 今天出刊了。這是德國一年一度的外交及國際關係專刊。作者群包括學者、智庫專家、政府官員。
這一期談歐洲問題的作者有波蘭外長、Moldova 總理、德國國防部長等等等。
今年《脈動》特別做了中國專題,作者有五位,分別是:
中國的全國人大外事委員會副主任委員傅瑩、日本眾議會議員Minora Kiuchi、巴黎的中國問題專家Francois Godement、曾任澳洲駐華大使,現任外交及貿易秘書長的Frances Adamson,以及台灣的龍應台。
德國編輯在文末放了一個德國的民意調查圖表,提問是:「面對中國,你認為德國應該更強力保護自己的政治利益,即使犧牲經濟利益?」
答案:贊成 76%
反對 19%
小編把龍應台文章翻譯成中文,跟讀者分享。英文原文附在後面。如果嫌我翻譯得不好,那那那,那表示你英文很好,你就看英文吧......
——————————————————————
兩千三百萬人在獨木舟上
——為什麼歐洲應該關切台灣的未來
反對黨公布2020總統候選人名單的那一天,我在台北和知識圈的朋友們午餐。那悲觀的,用問句來表達自己的悲觀,譬如,「你覺得台灣還有多少年?」那樂觀的,用黑色幽默來表達樂觀,譬如,「感謝老天。香港讓他們太忙了,沒時間管台灣。」
跟德國一樣,台灣對中國大陸和香港的貿易順差,在2018年是831億美元。百分之四十一的對外貿易針對中國,中國大陸市場對台灣的重要不言而喻。然而,隨著近年來台灣海峽兩岸的關係緊張,反對黨(國民黨) 憂慮市場的優勢無法持續,而執政黨(民進黨) 則選擇強化選民對北京的不信任來抵制中國的影響力。執政黨最近提出的國安新法可能將任何被認定為為中國宣傳者入罪。
和歐洲一樣,台灣人對中國的感受也是複雜的。 當中國代表的是活躍的經濟機會時,很多台灣人就容易所謂「親中」,當中國代表的是壓迫和可能的入侵時,很多台灣人就是所謂的「反中」。問題是,中國兩者兼備。後果就是,台灣內部的分歧遠遠超過了僅只是政治和經濟的層面。
如果你知道台灣是如何一路走來的,你會覺得它今天變成一個民主社會真是一個不得了的成就。沒有革命,一黨獨裁四十年的國民黨,不管你說它是自願還是被迫,放下了政權,分享權力。沒有流血,昔日牢裡的政治犯變成今日的立法者和政治領袖。1987年解嚴以後,政權的交替基本上公平而有序地進行了三十年。
台灣安靜地進行了三十年的民主,時間幾乎和它的國際孤立一樣長。美國不承認台灣的國家地位,但是,就如同當年對於德國,美國也扮演了安全守護者的角色。令人不安的是,在美國宣布要把軍售台灣常態化的同時,中國也宣布,它在台灣海峽及其領空,要把軍艦和戰機的演習常態化。
所以台灣民主的威脅其實是雙重的。比較明顯的是中國的威脅,這個威脅,往往超出台灣本身的控制能力。一個不那麼明顯的威脅,卻是內部自製的。台灣的政治人物和政黨熱切拿這個威脅做為政治資本,刺激集體恐懼來強化部落式的愛國主義。這種操作的成功,對台灣的民主制度和機構本身,是個真實的危險。
國際上那些純粹為了攻擊中國而故意把台灣捧在手心讚美的人,其實讓我坐立不安。一代又一代的台灣人為民主付出了代價,很大的代價,而得到今天的成果。這個成果,太珍貴了,不可以變成別人或別國為了自己的利益而拿來玩弄的籌碼或棋子。
德國的歷史是特殊的。德國的人民親身目睹了,如果不戒慎恐懼地去維護,一個開放合理的社會制度是如何容易地瓦解,一夜之間可以被獨裁取代。經歷了二戰,又擺脫了共產黨的歷史爭取到自由,德國可能比很多其他國家更容易理解台灣人的困境和追求。道德勇氣的來源往往是歷史的痛苦。身為歐盟的重要成員,德國有責任為世界的和平做出最大的努力,發揮最大的影響力。
但是,歐洲憑什麼一定要關心台灣呢?
首先,如果沒有台灣模式,全世界大概就都得接受一種說法,就是,儒家文化和民主制度是無法相容的,而所謂「中國模式」就是唯一邏輯、不可避免的現代中國。台灣的存在證明了一件事:未必如此。
第二,台灣本身的努力值得世界的尊敬。沒錯,如果中國是一艘航空母艦,那麼台灣只不過是一葉孤零零的獨木舟。可是在這個獨木舟上有兩千三百萬人正在追求一種有自由、有尊嚴的生活方式。如果台灣是歐盟的一個成員,就人口論,台灣就是二十八個成員國(英國脫歐後二十七國)中第七大國,比波蘭稍小,但比荷蘭和比利時大。以經濟購買力來看,台灣更是名列全球第二十二。所以,歐洲可以想像剝奪波蘭人或者荷蘭人對生活方式和政治體制的選擇權利嗎?
23 Million People on a Canoe
—Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future
Lung Yingtai
On the day when the opposition party announced its presidential candidate for the 2020 election, I was sitting at a lunch table in Taipei listening to my intellectual friends uttering their concerns about the future of Taiwan. The pessimists phrased their pessimism in the form of questions such as “How many years do you think Taiwan has left?” The optimists expressed their optimism with dark humour, “Thank God they will be too busy with Hong Kong and the US for a while.”
Like Germany, Taiwan operates a trade surplus with mainland China and Hong Kong, amounting to $83.1 billion in 2018. With 41% of Taiwan’s exports going to China, Taipei’s economy depends on trade with the mainland. However, given the increasing tension across the Taiwan Strait, the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) in particular has been worrying whether Taiwan will be able to sustain these figures. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party, on the other hand, is capitalizing on voters’ intense distrust of Beijing, stepping up measures to “contain” China’s influence. Taipei recently drafted a national security law that would make it a punishable offense to spread “political propaganda” for China.
As in Europe, Taiwanese feel highly ambivalent about mainland China: When China signifies economic opportunities, most Taiwanese are 23 Million People on a Canoe Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future “pro-China”; when China represents oppression and potential invasion, most Taiwanese are “anti-China”. The problem is that China resembles both. The result is a deep division among Taiwanese extending far beyond the political and economic spheres.
Given the circumstances under which Taiwan emerged and evolved, its evolution into an authentic democracy represents an extraordinary achievement. It was without a revolution that the KMT, which had ruled Taiwan for more than 40 years, put an end to martial law and, whether convinced or compelled to act, opened the country’s political system to sharing power. Without bloodshed, dissidents who had once sat in jails became legislators and political leaders. Since the lifting of martial law 1987, power has changed hands fairly and orderly, following the results of each election.
Taiwan has been a quiet democracy for more than thirty years, nearly as long as the four decades during which it has been isolated by the international community. The US does not formally recognize Taiwan but, as with Germany, acts as the country’s security guarantor. While Washington has indicated that arms sales to Taiwan will become more of a routine, China has devised a routine of its own by holding long-range combat drills and ordering its fighter jets to cross the maritime line.
However, the threat to Taiwanese democracy is twofold. The obvious one comes from China, and to a large extent lies beyond Taipei’s control. The less obvious threat is home-made, as the looming China threat tempts domestic politicians to mobilize the population’s collective fear to foment a tribal nationalism. Their success would pose a real danger to Taiwan’s democratic institutions.
Those who applaud Taiwanese democracy for the sole purpose of criticizing China make me nervous. Generations of Taiwanese fought and ultimately achieved a democracy – it is simply too precious for other people’s agendas, internal or external.
Germany has a unique history: its people have experienced first-hand how easily democratic institutions may fall apart when not meticulously guarded. Having received democracy as a gift following World War II and struggled to regain their freedom from Communist rule, Germans are in a unique position to understand both the predicament as well as the aspirations of the Taiwanese. Moral courage often comes from past sufferings. As a leading EU member state, Germany has a responsibility to maximize its own efforts as well as to influence others’ efforts for world peace.
But why should the world care about the future of Taiwan? First of all, save the Taiwan model, the world might have to accept the claim that democracy and Confucianism are incompatible, and that a communist China presents the only logical and inevitable path to modernity. Secondly, Taiwan deserves respect on its own merits. True, if China were an aircraft carrier, Taiwan would be a lone canoe. But standing on this canoe are 23 million people aspiring for a life with liberty and dignity. If it were an EU member, Taiwan would be the 7th largest of the Union’s 28 member-states (27 after Brexit), smaller than Poland but larger than the Netherlands or Belgium, with a developed economy ranking 22nd in the world by purchasing power parity. Do we really want to return to a world in which it is imaginable that countries such as Poland or the Netherlands should be deprived of their autonomy to determine their own way of life and political system?
The Berlin Pulse 2019
龍應台專文:https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/3_Koerber_TheBerlinPulse_YingTai.pdf
全本:https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/TheBerlinPulse_2019_FINAL.pdf
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過27萬的網紅Lindie Botes,也在其Youtube影片中提到,2020 update: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgJ-at7sAAA Afrikaans | 00:03 English | 00:29 Français | 00:55 한국말 | 01:48 日本語 | 02:58 中文 | 04:26 Tiếng...
make a claim中文 在 多糖教室 毛小孩教育訓練 Facebook 的精選貼文
一封給國家地理頻道「Dog: Impossible」節目負責人的公開信:
An open letter to the leadership team of Nat Geo Wild Dog Impossible:
Translate: Yu-Hwa Su 翻譯: 蘇昱華
Proof: Yen Ke 校對: 葛雁
The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) applauds National Geographic’s mission to offer intelligent, relevant and captivating non-fiction entertainment. This is a crucial objective, especially as an introduction to children and viewers largely relying on television for their scientific information.
國際動物行為諮詢師協會(IAABC)對於國家地理頻道致力於提供電視觀眾正確知識與科學內容表示讚賞。這是一個非常重要的目標,特別是對依賴電視得到這些知識的兒童與其他觀眾們來說。
However, your stated mission is in direct conflict with your show Dog: Impossible. In fact, the irresponsible treatment of the dogs and people on this show flies in the face of all best practices in animal training and behavior. Rather than promoting science and scientifically-proven methodology, Dog: Impossible sacrifices learning science for more dramatic television.
然而,貴頻道所提供的節目「Dog: Impossible」卻與貴頻道「提供正確的科學知識」的一貫立場衝突。節目中對犬隻以及飼主的不負責處理方式與應有的動物訓練及行為操作的準則相違背。「Dog: Impossible」並沒有提倡科學以及經科學驗證的方法,這節目犧牲了對科學的學習,轉而追求吸睛的電視節目效果。
Matt Beisner appears to have no credentials or education in training and behavior, yet he refers to himself as a behaviorist. His claim that “energy is the one language that every animal on the planet speaks” makes clear he is not one.
Matt Beisner並沒有動物訓練或行為學的相關學習經歷與證照,卻宣稱自己是一位行為學家。從他的主張:「能量是地球上所有動物都會使用的共通語言」,便能明白他並不是行為學家。
His statement, “You don’t need tricks, you don’t need treats, you don’t need force,” shows just how unaware of his own actions he is. His misuse of scientific terminology leads viewers to believe they are learning demonstrated, safe and accepted strategies in helping their dogs. In fact, Mr. Beisner is forcing these dogs from start to finish of each episode. His own “tricks” are that of over-stressing dogs until they’re in a state referred to in psychology and science as “learned helplessness.”
他主張「你不需要技巧、零食、或蠻力 (去訓練狗)」,這顯示出他對於自己的所做所為一無所知。他對科學術語的濫用也會誤導觀眾,讓觀眾以為他們正在學習經證實有效而且安全可接受的方法來幫助狗狗。但這位訓練師在每一集節目上從頭到尾都是在逼迫這些狗,而他所擁有的「技巧」,就是讓狗進入過度緊迫的狀態,直到牠們進入心理學和科學上所指的「習得無助」(learned helplessness)狀態。
Learned helplessness occurs when a subject endures repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. Originally thought to show a subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, for more than half a century it’s been known instead to be the emotional “shutting down” of the subject. Anxiety, clinical depression, and related mental illnesses are common consequences of this technique in humans.
「習得無助」發生在動物沒有任何控制權,且重複地被施加嫌惡刺激的時候。最初,人們認為習得無助狀態意味著動物「接受」了自身無法改變、無能為力的情形,超過半個世紀以來,人們認為這是動物情緒「關機(shutting down)」的表現。在人類身上,習得無助的常見結果包含焦慮、憂鬱症、以及相關的心理疾病。
Allow us to note some aspects of the trailer and his shows, but first, to point out a few well-documented and commonly understood aspects of dog behavior so that we may better make our points understood.
在我們解釋為何我們認為此節目的預告片與內容不適當之前,我們希望先闡述一些正確的犬隻行為常識,以便您能更理解我們的觀點。
Canine body language indicating stress and severe stress:
顯示出壓力以及嚴重緊迫的犬隻肢體語言:
Compressed bodies
Dry, raspy panting
Wide, open eyes with dilated pupils
Heavy drooling
“Whipping” head and body back, pushing off a handler in order to get away
Growling
Fighting
Biting
縮緊身體
急促的喘氣
睜大雙眼、散瞳
大量流口水
甩頭、用前爪推抱著狗的人以退後、試圖掙脫
低吼
打架
開咬
Eleven seconds into the trailer, Mr. Beisner rubs his hands together, smiling, and says, “This is going to be gnarly.” All professionals know from that statement what the series will spotlight: A poorly (if at all) educated non-professional pushing dogs way beyond therapeutic limits, in the name of “results.”
在預告片11秒的地方,Beisner先生搓手並笑著說「等一下會很精采喔」。所有專業人士都知道這句話代表這個節目的亮點將會是:一名缺乏適當教育的訓練師,逼迫狗到超過其能承受的極限,並把這樣的結果稱為是良好的改善。
Flooding, the term for inundating a subject with their fears, phobias and triggers, is ethically questionable at best, cruel and unnecessary, always. There's also a common danger of spontaneous recovery of the phobia. This is because flooding doesn't replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response. “No response” is simply suppression, not cure.
「洪水法」,指的是故意將動物置於恐慌或恐懼的觸發刺激情境,這樣的方法不道德、殘忍、而且沒必要。另外,恐懼的自發性回復(spontaneous recovery)也是洪水法常見的風險,這是因為洪水法並沒有將害怕的反應重新制約成其他不同的情緒行為,它只是讓動物沒有反應。「沒有反應」只是壓抑,動物並沒有因此感到不害怕或恐慌。
Throughout the trailer dogs are flooded with aversive stimuli such as other dogs, people and equipment, something an ethical professional would not, and could not do per any answerable guidelines of animal training and behavior care.
在整個預告片中,狗狗被迫接受各種嫌惡刺激的洪水法訓練,例如其他狗、其他人類和物品,這是具有道德的專業訓練人員不會做的,任何負責任的動物訓練及行為照護準則也不會如此建議。
Systematic desensitization and counterconditioning, gradual exposure to the feared object, and replacement of a negative emotional association with a more pleasant one, are the recommended techniques used to treat such fear and aggression cases, per all legitimate veterinary, training and behavior organizations.
系統性減敏與反制約,也就是逐步與少量的讓狗接觸其本來會害怕的事物,並且將引發的少量負面情緒與其非常喜愛的事物配對給予,是用來處理恐懼及攻擊案例的建議方法,也是每個好的獸醫師、訓練及行為機構會推薦的方法。
Beisner’s statement that “We know at the Zen Yard that dogs help other dogs come out of their shell and face their fear and get past their aggression” isn’t just scientifically unsupportable, his words ring hollow during the very scene playing while he says those words: Beisner restraining one dog, while his co-host pulls a leashed dog to the first in a completely unnatural gesture perhaps intended to either mimic natural dog greeting (it doesn’t) or to flood the heavily drooling dog who is unable to move or get away. The dogs end up in a fight. They have been set up to fail, and the outcome is inevitable.
Beisner宣稱「我們在Zen Yard(他的訓練中心)知道狗會去幫助其他狗融入外界、面對牠們的恐懼並且克服攻擊行為」,這句話不只是缺乏科學支持,在影片中他講出這句話時搭配的畫面,亦表現出他的說詞缺乏支持:Beisner限制了第一隻狗的行動,由節目的共同主持人以牽繩將另一隻狗以一個完全不自然的姿勢拉到第一隻狗身邊,他們可能是在試著模仿狗狗自然的社交打招呼行為(但並不是),或使用洪水法訓練那隻狂流口水(顯示牠很緊張)並且無法逃脫的狗。最終兩隻狗打起來,訓練師製造的這個情境,讓失敗的結果無可避免。
In the trailer, the assistant host, Stefanie DiOrio, states, “Nervousness can easily turn to fear which can lead to aggression.” This is an accurate statement, which is why it’s so confusing that the entire show would be predicated on pushing dogs to the very edge of survivable stress and into predictable aggression, doubling down on the issues that their owners are struggling with.
在預告片中,節目的共同主持人Stefanie DiOrio說「緊張不安很容易變成真正的恐懼,並且導致攻擊行為」,這句話是正確的,但也讓人更加困惑為何整個節目的走向都在將狗推向牠們所能承受壓力的極限、觸發根本可預測的攻擊行為、並使飼主所面對的問題加倍惡化。
We know that the dramatic changes in behavior, from stressed and wildly aggressive to “calm” dogs, make for compelling TV. To an average pet owner it looks like these dogs are making huge improvements. All clients just want their dog to “Stop being aggressive.” However, we also know that behavior suppression is not the same as behavior modification, that a stressed and shut-down dog is a more dangerous animal than one who is actively showing aggression, and that the long-term prognosis of this kind of intervention is poor for both the client and their dog.
我們知道行為上戲劇性的變化,從一隻緊迫且兇猛攻擊的狗轉變成“冷靜”的狗,這個過程代表了高收視率,在不十分了解行為學的飼主眼中看來,這些狗狗似乎有巨大的進步。飼主都只是希望他們的狗「不要再有攻擊性」,然而我們也知道單純抑制攻擊行為的出現,並不是真正的行為改善技術。舉例來說一隻高壓力但看似沒有反應的狗,遠比一隻會表現出攻擊性的狗要危險許多 (譯註: 因為這樣的狗可能會沒有徵兆地開咬),因此這種抑制攻擊行為的訓練法,以長遠來看對飼主以及狗狗都是有害的。
It is also worth pointing out that, like his predecessor, Mr Beisner’s assessment of cause for much of the issues he’s asked to address is simple, made especially clear in episode 4 where he not only saves a dog, he “saves a marriage:” Women are unable to effectively lead, must be stronger, must change their ways.
另一個值得注意的事是Beisner先生,如同他在同一個頻道的前輩,西薩,對導致問題的原因評估也過於簡化,例如第四集中他聲稱他不只拯救了狗狗,他還「拯救了這段婚姻」,因為女主人無法有效的領導狗狗,因此她必須更堅強,必須改變他們之間的相處模式。
Misogyny, it seems, cures dog behavior problems. Real exploration and explanation regarding the antecedents and consequences around behaviors are ignored in favor of client blaming.
這段貶抑女性的解釋,看起來似乎能改善犬隻的行為問題,然而關於行為問題真正的前因後果卻被指責客戶所取代,並沒有真正的被探討與解釋。
The clients on the show represent thousands of clients throughout the US and beyond with whom we work every day, helping them to help their dogs. Far from being dogs “other people won’t work with,” the dogs on your show are exactly the clients and dogs that IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultants, as well as all members of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, and other certified behavior specialists see and successfully work with every day.
節目中所出現的客戶正代表了我們日常工作中所會幫助的人們與他們的狗,呈現的就是我們在美國跟其他國家的上千位客戶。節目中所出現的這些有著行為問題的狗絕對不是「其他訓練師都不想要處理的狗狗」,事實上這些客戶與狗正是IAABC認證的狗行為諮詢師、美國獸醫行為學家、認證的應用動物行為學家或是其他受認證的行為學專家,每天工作的日常。
We do so using the best practices of our field (see https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/), adopted by the leading behavior and training organizations, without psychologically or physically harming the animals we work with.
我們在這個領域也使用最嚴謹的訓練師專業道德守則(英文版參見https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/,中文版參見https://reurl.cc/72eVkl),這個守則受領先的行為及訓練機構所採用,使訓練師與行為諮詢師在工作時,不對我們經手的動物造成生理或心理上的傷害。
The IAABC urges Nat Geo WILD to stop promoting this public miseducation. The tactics employed in the name of entertainment are unnecessarily harsh and potentially dangerous to the public, and they teach yet another generation of Nat Geo watchers absolutely incorrect and harmful practices.
IAABC呼籲國家地理頻道(Nat Geo WILD)停止傳播此系列誤導公眾的資訊。以娛樂包裝節目的策略對於觀眾是不必要的粗糙而且有潛在風險的,甚至是向頻道的年輕一代觀眾灌輸完全不正確且有害的做法。
It remains a mystery why your network is so intent on harming dogs. After years of Cesar Milan, to now bring in a man equally unskilled, who equates terrified, angry or entrapped dogs to his own addiction history is remarkable. Are we really satisfied conflating ego with compassion, self-focus with an understanding of animal behavior? Is this the “science” your mission stands for?
我們仍然不知為何貴頻道這麼多年來如此堅持持續傷害狗的這些作為。在西薩 (Cesar Milan) 的節目播映多年之後,現在又引進一個同樣缺乏正確訓練技巧,以自身藥物成癮困擾歷史去錯誤的同理恐懼或憤怒的狗的人。我們能接受一個膨脹自我,而非真正擁有同情心、適當自我聚焦、了解動物行為的「專業人士」嗎?這就是貴節目所宣稱的「科學」立場嗎?
The damage Nat Geo is doing to dogs by choosing this type of programming is astounding. We can only assume that the producers are unaware of this, as it’s hard to imagine such harm and cruelty would be deliberate.
國家地理頻道選擇製作這類節目對於狗狗的傷害甚鉅,我們只能假定節目製作人並沒有意識到這點,因為我們難以想像會有人故意去做這樣有害且殘忍的事情。
Would you show a reality program on heart surgery with a photogenic “self-taught” practitioner, simply stating the star was not a doctor before showing him mutilating a real patient?
想問貴節目是否會採用一個上鏡的“自學”外科醫生錄製心臟手術的實境節目,告知觀眾他並非真正的醫生,然後播放他對病患動刀的畫面?
I leave you with the clearest image of suffering and abuse from your trailer: the Aussie, stressed to the breaking point, thick ropes of drool streaming from its mouth, being choked by a slip lead to compensate for the host’s inability to even effectively muzzle a dog. This dog is at the point of collapse. This dog is being tortured, and that is not hysteria. That is an assessment by any educated measure.
作為結尾,我希望指出貴節目預告片中明確顯示出狗狗受苦或受虐的畫面:那隻澳洲牧羊犬已經瀕臨壓力的極限,您可以看到口水掛在其嘴邊 (大量口水為壓力徵兆),口罩因為沒有確實的配戴而滑脫,導致牠被勒到快要窒息,已在崩潰邊緣。具備專業與適當教育的人員指出,這隻狗因在節目上被虐待而情緒崩潰,並非其本身歇斯底里。
Please stop this cruel and dangerous programming. To do otherwise is to support that self-taught heart surgery and all the consequences it would bring; that this show is currently bringing to families struggling with their dogs.
Professionals refer to Cesar Milan’s influence on dog training as “job security” because so many dogs ruined or made far worse by his teachings are brought to us by well-intentioned, often weeping owners desperate for real help. Often it is too late.
請停止這系列殘酷且危險的節目。否則貴節目就等同於支持前面舉例的自學的心臟外科「醫師」進行手術一樣,這些危險的後果正由觀眾與他們的狗承擔。專業訓犬人士將西薩米蘭對訓犬的影響戲稱為「工作保障」,因為太多飼主使用了他教授的技巧後,狗狗的狀況變得更糟,而哭著迫切尋找真正的協助,此時通常都為時已晚。
We do not want more work due to this same phenomenon.
我們不想要因為這個節目帶來類似影響而接到更多工作。
We’d be happy to provide you with any education and resources you need to inform your producers about what would qualify as responsible, effective, safe and thoughtful work with the same “red zone” dogs you sell so well.
但我們很樂意提供貴頻道任何需要的教育與資源,讓您們的節目製作人對訓犬工作應有的品質有所理解,例如負責、有效、安全,並且理解到對於在節目中出現的這些「危險」犬隻,事實上有更合理的訓練方法。
Thank you for your consideration.
謝謝您的閱讀與理解。
Marjie Alonso
Executive Director, IAABC
For the Board of Directors
Marjie Alonso
IAABC執行長
代表董事會發言
make a claim中文 在 柳俊江 Lauyeah Facebook 的最讚貼文
Stand up. Respect ✊
(Update: 中文繹版連結:https://www.facebook.com/329728177143445/posts/1800273350088913/)
“An open letter to Eric Kwok, and for everyone re homophobia, discrimination and bullying”
Dear Eric,
Imagine this. You are one of the contestants on a TV talent show. You are sitting in a room with other hopefuls and one of the judges walks into the room and demanded this: “Raise your hand if you are not homophobic.”
I’m very sure you will raise your hand.
You don’t have to answer me whether or not you really are homophobic. But stay with the feeling inside your mind. How do you feel?
Your feelings are most likely the same as the feelings of your contestants when you walked into a room and asked them to raise their hands to declare their sexual orientation publicly. Because in this day and age, homophobia is just as “controversial” as homosexuality, if not more.
The reason why I’m writing this open letter to you is because after reading your apology, I want to take the opportunity to address to you, and everyone out there, the need for proper etiquette regarding LGBT issues, and to address the forms of micro-aggression, bullying and discrimination the LGBT community faces everyday especially in the workplace.
I’m taking this incident seriously because from my personal experience, this is not just a one-time slip-up for you.
I remember long time ago I was so looking forward to meeting and working with you because you are, after all, Eric Kwok the great songwriter.
You were very friendly when we talked privately. Then I started to notice how once there were audiences, media or other people around and when the cameras were turned on, you would start making insinuating and demeaning gay jokes about me and in front of me. Jokes and comments even my closest friends wouldn’t dare to make in public.
At first, I didn’t really pay too much attention. I just brushed it off as juvenile and trivial. In fact, I had been so used to these jokes since growing up that I learned not to react much.
However, as time progressed and we worked on more occasions, the same thing would happen repeatedly. The teasing and the stereotypical gay jokes continued and you would make sure that the spotlight would fall on me afterwards. The jokes no longer felt light. They felt hostile, even vindictive.
In fact, it felt like bullying.
One of these incidents was well documented in tabloids back then and you can still look it up yourself on the internet.
I came to the realization that it was not just a one-time thing. I don’t know if it’s intentional or unintentional but it’s definitely a habit and a pattern.
So many questions would be in my mind every time after working with you. Why does Eric do that every time? Is he picking on me? Does he hate me? Is he homophobic? Does he think homosexuality is something funny? Does he do this to other people too? Did I do something that pissed him off? I remember I was nothing but courteous. So why do I deserve this?
I had no answers for all of these questions. All I knew was I became fearful of working with you, dreading what words would fall out of your mouth to put me in an awkwardly embarassing position. But still I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. You’re from California you shouldn’t be homophobic. I even defended you in my head by telling myself to loosen up.
But it’s not just you. Throughout my years in the entertainment industry, I have encountered and endured so many chauvinistic “tough guys” who like to use homosexuality as a laughing stock or source of bad comedy which were all discriminating and demeaning, yet not funny.
It’s not only me. I’m sure many people of the LGBT community face this everyday in their workplace. People around them would claim their intentions were harmless but we all knew deep down that these “jokes” have the power to put people someone in an embarrassing, inferior and even threatening positions.
We kept quiet and tolerated. Sometimes we even felt obligated to laugh along just so we couldn’t afford to look “petty” or “stiff”, especially in front of people of higher authority and stature.
So Eric I want to ask you.
Why have you been so obsessed with my sexuality all these years?
Why are you so fascinated by other people’s sexuality?
Why is being gay such a huge issue to you even to this day that you had to make it the first thing you asked your contestants?
Why you also had to specifically make a post on social media about that fact you questioned people about their sexuality?
Why do you take so much pride publicly in your ability to guess who are the gay contestants even when they weren’t ready to share that information?
And most of all why do you find all this to be so funny?
To begin with one’s sexual orientation is a very personal thing which others have no right to intrude, even in the entertainment industry where you are supposed to be fine with “controversy”.
This is for you and everyone out there: using your power and authority to demand someone to declare his or her sexual orientation, especially in a work environment, is ancient, barbaric and unacceptable.
Kicking someone out of the closet is just pure evil.
The fact you did what you did, especially with your stature and on broadcast TV, is not only wrong, but also you are telling the Hong Kong audience that it’s alright to continue this form of intrusion and micro aggression that the LGBT community wants to see gone.
You’re leading a very poor example by giving Hong Kong audience the impression that being gay is still a taboo.
How are your contestants, who are boys of young age, going to offer new perspectives to the Hong Kong audience under your guidance if you perpetuate stereotyping and demonstrate to them that being gay is still an issue?
I feel sorry for any contestants who are in fact gay sitting in that room that day too. They must have been traumatized seeing the way you forced your inquisition. The impression you left them with is that the entertainment industry is still a very unfriendly place for gays. Is that what you want them to think?
But most of all, it’s the attitude, tone and manner with which you shared about this incident on social media, giving people the impression that any matter regarding sexual orientation is still something shameful and laughable, which is on top of list the thing that the LGBT community fights hard everyday to change.
When you said in your apology you “have great respect for gay people, especially their hard fight for equality” I became baffled as what you did, in the past to me or in that room to the boys, is the exact thing that makes the LGBT community’s ongoing fight for equality so difficult.
Putting people down, perpetuate stereotypes, heckling and ridiculing yet making it look OK is anything but liberal and respectful, or Californian. I don’t see any “entertainment values” that are of good taste if they are made up at the expense of other people’s struggle.
If this incident happened in America, where you grew up, you would’ve gotten yourself in such hot waters that you probably can’t get out of.
I just want you and everyone out there to know that it’s not okay. And it never was. Never will be.
Being “as liberal as it gets” is great. Having gay friends is great too. Having dinner with your gay friends is absolutely fabulous! Playing all these cards to avoid being labelled as “homophobic” is very convenient. But having class, empathy, kindness and authentic respect is a completely different territory. These don’t come automatically with backgrounds.
At this point you don’t owe me an apology. I just hope that after this incident you can really start working and living with the essences of a truly liberal and creative individual. Inspire changes and end stereotypes. Start new trends and break old patterns. Embrace and not segregate. Do the work.
I had been away from Hong Kong and the industry for a few years now. It breaks me heart that I have to write this sort of open letter when it’s already 2018. I want to make this industry a safer, nicer and more accepting place to work in when I return. I want members of the LGBT community in Hong Kong, who have been so supportive of me and my music, to also have safer and nicer working environment in their respective lives.
I don’t mind coming off as an over-reacting petty bitch with no sense of humour if my message finally comes through and everyone, including you, “gets it”. I rather have no sense of humour than a bad one.
To all the contestants of the show. If anyone ever asks you if you are gay and you are not ready to discuss, it’s OK to stand up for yourself and say this: “It’s a rude question to begin with. You have no right to get an answer from me to begin with. And it doesn’t matter. It SHOULDN’T matter. It’s 2018. I hope one day I can use my craft to inspire the world and to make this become a non-issue.”
But if you are ready to be open, you have my complete support and love.
Let’s hope that through acceptance, learning and effort, one day there will no longer be any “controversial questions”. Wouldn’t we like that Eric?
Yours truly,
Pong
#LGBT
#homophobia
#safeworkplace
#中文版稍後會有
Eric Kwok 郭偉亮
make a claim中文 在 Lindie Botes Youtube 的精選貼文
2020 update: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgJ-at7sAAA
Afrikaans | 00:03
English | 00:29
Français | 00:55
한국말 | 01:48
日本語 | 02:58
中文 | 04:26
Tiếng Việt | 06:21
Bahasa Indonesia | 07:02
07:38 | العربية
हिंदी | 07:57
Ending: 08:23
The first video on my channel was a polyglot video I made in 2013, and 4 years later, the time has come for me to update. Some of my languages have improved, some have not, and some new ones have come along. I hope this inspires you on your language journey - I would love to hear what you're learning and how you learn!
I do not claim to be fluent in any of these languages: language learning is a lifelong journey and fluency is a construct. I just wish to share my love of languages with the world and I also make videos in various languages to track my progress over the years. I know I may have made some mistakes, so please correct me so we can all learn together! Enjoy and feel free to like and subscribe if you want to see more! Love you all!
2013년에 처음으로 외국어를 많이 하는 영상을 올렸는데, 실력이 많이 달라졌어요 (좋아진 언어 있는 만큼 못하게 된 언어도 많아요!). 4년후에, 드디어 새로운 "폴리글롯" 영상 올릴 시간이 됐네요. 이 10개 국어를 유창하게 하지 못하지만, 다 배우고 있어요. 실수 있으면 부담 없이 고쳐주세요! 여러분은 외국어를 어떻게 부담없이 궁금해서, 꼭 댓글 남겨 주세요! 이 영상 좋아하시면 구독해주셨으면 감사하겠습니다! 모두 사랑해요!!
四年前にはじめて外国語をたくさん話している動画をアップしたんですが、その時からもっと上手になった言語もあるし、めっちゃへたくなった言語もあるんですね。今、やっと新しい「ポリーグロット」動画をアップします!もちろんこの外国語を全部ペラペラではないけど、全部頑張って勉強しています。みんなさんの外国語の勉強についても気になりますが、ぜひコメントをしてくださいね!もし間違いがあると、教えてください!みんな大好き!
Ek wil nou regtig nie in elke taal die selfde tipe inleiding skryf nie, maar dit is seker belangrik om my husitaal ook hier te hê. Afrikaanse mense, ek sien julle!! :D
———
?SOCIALS
Insta → https://www.instagram.com/lindiebotes/
Website & resources → http://lindiebotes.com/
Twitter → https://twitter.com/lindiebee
FB → https://www.facebook.com/lindiebotesvideos/
Ko-fi → https://ko-fi.com/lindiebotes#
✨GOODIES
$10 free italki credits (after first lesson) → https://go.italki.com/LindieBotes
10% off Du Chinese (my favorite app!) enter LINDIE10 at checkout → https://www.duchinese.net/
All discounts → http://lindiebotes.com/discounts
All language resources → https://lindiebotes.com/language-resources/
Merch → https://society6.com/lindiebotes
?ABOUT
Welcome to my channel! My name is Lindie and I share my love for languages through my polyglot progress and language learning tips here. South African by birth, I spent most of my life in France, Pakistan, the UAE and Japan. Now I work as a UI/UX designer in Singapore. I'm a Christian and strive to shine God’s light in all I do. May this channel inspire you to reach your language goals!
New here? Best videos → https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRCVN94KILKXGx45JKaVBSpPkrpXhrhRe
FAQ → https://lindiebotes.com/faq/
?BOOKS I USE
Practical Chinese Grammar → https://geni.us/PracticalChineseGram
Japanese for Busy People on Amazon → https://geni.us/JapaneseForBusy1
Advanced Japanese for Busy People → https://geni.us/JapaneseForBusy3
Korean Grammar in Use Intermediate → https://geni.us/KoreanGrammarUse
Korean TOPIK exam prep → https://geni.us/TOPIK2prep
Short Stories in Spanish → https://geni.us/spanishshortstories
?EQUIPMENT
Camera → https://geni.us/CanonPowerShotG7
Mic → https://geni.us/RodeSmartLavMicr
Tripod → https://geni.us/ManfrottoTravel
———
Some links are affiliate links, and a percentage goes towards supporting my channel.
Collabs & partnerships: hello@lindiebotes.com
make a claim中文 在 What is a Content ID claim? - YouTube Help - Google Support 的必吃
In these cases, the advertising revenue goes to the copyright owners of the claimed content. How do I know if my video has a Content ID claim? When a Content ID ... ... <看更多>