關於 would you rather中文版 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

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

這真的令人瞠目結舌

葛特曼的律師2014年11月25日回函
回覆：您10月給葛特曼先生的信函
請諒解我們的回應時間，超過了您當初於十一月四號信中，我們所承諾的三週期限數日。
我們對於柯醫師的疑慮非常認真地看待，且我們已經詳閱所有書中相關頁面並檢視當時撰寫依據的面談紀錄與文件。
我們認為，在台灣媒體上全面性的誤解與魯莽的指控，是因為Gutmann書中的英文與相關頁面被翻譯成中文過後，因為語言與文化的差異所造成的理解問題。
我們相信所有的誤解都會在中文版的The Slaughter中被澄清，其中會包含未收錄在英文版中的序言，會直接回應柯文哲醫師的疑慮。
為了讓事情更明朗，我們必須要指出，對於書中225頁的理解，完全沒有英語語系的評論家，有著跟第一語言是華語的台灣讀者有著相同解釋。 在您給Gutmann先生的信件中，您對於255頁的敘述「所有器官都是來自於法輪功」有特別的疑慮。
這本書有透過三位專業讀者同儕審查，且經Prometheus冗長的內部編輯過程，不僅包含文字內容，更須檢視作者的筆記、訪談的錄音帶以及電子溝通。
沒有任何英語系的讀者會將標題或是文字內容解讀為，柯文哲可從類似私人「器官仲介」交易的形式取得法輪功器官，只會解讀為柯文哲醫師是被告知資訊的。
迄今沒有任何英語系讀者曾經將柯文哲醫師解讀為器官仲介者。
迄今也沒有任何英語系讀者相信，柯文哲醫師曾試圖自行購買器官或是以任何形式參與營利行為。
相反地，多數讀者讚揚柯醫師對於調查的貢獻。審查人員們均一致地如此回應，就像是觀眾們在華盛頓特區National Endowment for Democracy中舉辦的The Slaughter書本發表會的反應一樣。
我們相信語言、翻譯以及在台北市市長選舉中激昂的政治環境，會導致大家誤會作者的意思並讓事情變得更模糊。
然而我們將全力確保在中文版的The Slaughter會越準確越好。
總而言之，我們重申我們認為台灣媒體對於柯文哲醫師以及Gutmann先生的對待是不公平的。Gutmann先生相信且我們認為他的書所闡述的是，柯文哲醫師的舉止高尚，柯文哲醫師從來不曾執行器官仲介，他也從來不曾透過中國器官市場進行獲利，且他對於揭露目前仍在中國進行的醫療犯罪行為有著重大國際級的貢獻，柯文哲醫師的行為是令人驕傲的。
克萊夫 安世立
敬上
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Your Letter to Mr. Gutmann on October
Please excuse us for having exceeded by a few days the three week time period within which we had agreed to expand upon our earlier letter to you of November 4.
We take Dr. Ko's concerns very seriously and we have reviewed the relevant pages in his book together with our own records of interviews and notes on which those pages were based.
We have concluded that the entire misunderstanding and the reckless accusations which have appeared in the Taiwan media would appear to be based on language and cultural differences between the English in Mr. Gutmann's book, on the one hand, and the understanding of the relevant pages when the latter have been rendered into Chinese.
We believe that all misunderstandings will be clarified in the Chinese edition of The Slaughter, which will contain a special preface not included in the English edition. This preface will address Dr. Ko's concerns directly.
For greater clarity, we would like to point out that no English speaking reviewer of the book has understood page 255 in the way it has apparently been understood in Taiwan by readers whose first language is Chinese.
In your letter to Mr. Gutmann, you specifically mentioned the caption on page 255 reading "All the Organs will come from Falun Gong" as a particular concern.
This book was peer-reviewed by three expert readers and subjected to a lengthy internal editing process by Prometheus. This review included not only the text itself, but also the author's notes, interview tapes, and electronic communications.
No English-speaking reader has understood the caption or the text to mean anything other than that Dr. Ko was being given information, rather than making a statement about the availability of Falun Gong organs in some sort of personal "organ broker" deal.

No English-speaking reader to date has understood for one moment that Dr. Ko was acting as an "organ broker".

No English-speaking reader to date believes that Dr. Ko was trying to purchase organs himself or was in any way involved in any sort of profit-making venture.

On the contrary, most readers have praised Dr. Ko for his contribution to the investigation. Reviewers have responded similarly, as did the audience at the author's book launch at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC.
We believe that language, translation, and the heated environment of the political campaign for the mayoral race in Taipei may be playing a role in misconstruing the author's intentions and clouding the issue.
Nonetheless we are interested in ensuring that the Chinese edition of The Slaughter is as accurate as possible. In conclusion, we reiterate that we think the Taiwan media has been unfair in its treatment of both Dr. Ko and Mr. Gutmann. Mr. Gutmann believes, and we think his book demonstrates, that Dr. Ko has acted honourably, that he has never been an organ broker, that he has never sought profit through China's organ marketing, and that he has contributed significantly to the international effort to expose the medical crimes which continue to be perpetrated in China.
Yours Truly
Clive Ansley

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