Doesn't Stripping Someone Bare Presuppose That Even the Underwear Has Been Removed?

2006/2/27 16:59:15

The pseudo-moralism of the Chinese is laughable and pitiable, and this was once again confirmed in the replies to "This ID Was the First to Strip 'Little Brother Ma's' Underwear!" How strange — not a single word of this ID's post involved sex, the language was entirely normal, and yet somehow there's a moral problem? Even if we're talking about the title, it is purely a figure of speech. Doesn't stripping someone bare presuppose that even the underwear has been removed? Does stripping someone bare really mean plucking them like a duck until not a feather remains? It's all just rhetoric.

Language is the world, and the world is language. In a world so full of violence, especially when discussing the bloodiest of things — politics — can one put on a show of purity and prettiness like certain male service workers? The violence of the world presages the violence of language. Violent language is the only true sincerity in this world of blood and fire! What must be stripped bare first is the underwear of language. All hypocrisy begins with language.

Stripping someone bare means shaking out the filthiest things from the depths of their soul. Men who play pure and pretty — even if they wear ten thousand layers of clothing and ten thousand pairs of pants in front of this ID — are no different from a duck being plucked clean for slaughter. Words are like knives, meant to cut through all hypocrisy, cowardice, and shamelessness! Men who try to use hypocritical, cowardly, shameless pseudo-moralism to criticize this ID — not a chance!