關於 forceful中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【拜登Town Hall談中國】​
​
美國總統拜登2月17日參加了由CNN主辦的一場Town Hall（市政廳討論/辯論）。市政廳討論這種型式在美國非常常見，就是由政治人物直接面對群眾，回答問題。許多國會議員都會定期在自己的選區舉辦這樣子的會議，親自回答選民的問題（但由於疫情，從去年開始許多都改採線上進行了）。在台灣似乎較少有這種公開的辯論或討論機會。​
​
在這場Town Hall當中，拜登談到疫情、最低工資、政黨輪替後的狀況等等，也談到中國及人權議題。而其中和台灣最相關的，當屬他被主持人問到關於中國的人權問題，而他揭露自己和中國領導人習近平過往的談話內容。不過，他在這場講話的狀況並不是很好，有很多地方講不太清楚或口誤，所以在推特上也引起了猜話（？）大作戰。​
​
➤ 白宮逐字稿：https://reurl.cc/NXqLom​
➤ 中國問題片段：https://reurl.cc/0DE49A​
➤ 文字報導：https://reurl.cc/zbApYN​
​
台灣這邊在網路上也已經有很多片段流傳，不過在內容的解讀上似乎有許多不完整之處。這裡有一篇 Translation Matters 翻譯有要緊 的翻譯詳解，推薦大家參考：https://reurl.cc/V38Y7y 。​
​
以下是我們的看法，​
​
他回答跟習近平談話內容的那段，大致上講的有三個重點：​
​
１. 拜登認為習近平做為中國的領導者，跟歷屆領導者一樣，認為中國在歷史上是西方的受害者，而中國必須使用強力的控制來統治，這樣才能夠反映中國價值；​
​
２. 做為一個美國的領導人，拜登理解習近平所認為的這種反映中國價值的統治方式，因為美國的領導人也必須反映他所認為的美國價值；​
​
３. 美國仍然會像過去一樣，持續地在國際上扮演維護人權的角色，尤其是聯合國相關機構。中國方面一直都想要當世界老大，但假設違反人權原則的話，不太可能做到，中國將會面臨反作用力（repercussions），而習近平也知道這點。​
​
上述的內容中，尤以第二點引發許多爭論，因為除了出現明顯重大的口誤以外，語塞以及不流暢的發言也讓人難以理解部分內容，以下我們附上該段的原文，並試著針對此段中的兩項爭議做梳理。​
​
So the central — to vastly overstate it — the central principle of Xi Jinping is that there must be a united, tightly controlled China. ​ And he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that.​
​
I point out to him: No American President can be sustained as a President if he doesn’t reflect the values of the United States. ​ And so the idea I’m not going to speak out against what he’s doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uyghurs in western mountains of China and Taiwan, trying to end the One China policy by making it forceful — I said — and by the — he said he — he gets it. ​ Culturally, there are different norms that each country and they — their leaders — are expected to follow. ​
​
But my point was that […] And I came back and said they’re going to end their One China — their one child policy, because they’re so xenophobic, they won’t let anybody else in, and more people are retired than working. ​ How can they sustain economic growth when more people are retired?​
​
🔹 新疆人權議題與文化相對論​
​
許多人在看這段時，把「so the idea I’m not going to speak out against …」（句１：我沒有要對 … 發聲反對的這個想法）和「Culturally, there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow」（句２：文化上，不同國家期待領導人要遵守的常規不同）做連結，認為這是在替中國在新疆的行為，用「不同文化的常規」開脫。​
​
這樣的說法其實是有點過度解讀。如果看過原段落的影片，拜登在句１尾段吃了螺絲，然後忘了回來講上一句話的結尾就接著講下句。如果照逐字稿的字面上翻譯，的確會變成他「沒有」要對中國在新疆、香港、台灣的作為發聲，但這就會完全變成前言不對後語，因為他在此的前一句才說「如果不能反映美國的價值，沒有一個美國總統能繼續坐在總統位上」。比較合理的解讀是，他該句末忘了加像是「… is impossible」之類的語氣，也就是其實他原本要講的是「要我對 … 不發聲的這個想法是不可能的」。這樣一來，後句的「he said he gets it」（習近平說他了解）也能順接，因為這段的旨意是拜登在向習近平闡述美國總統必須得為美國價值挺身。​
​
句２的解讀其實是延續這整段的旨意，提到不同文化下對其領導人的期待也有所不同。這裡除了再一次回應前述美國總統必須反映美國價值精神外，也順便呼應了更前面一點他說習近平的中心原則就是認為中國必須統一且高度地控制，並常以此作為他許多作為的理由。如果各位繼續往後讀，拜登接著說他當時就認為中國會結束一胎化政策，因為他們很排外（xenophobic），不讓外人進來；在這樣的情況下，未來的勞動力將無法維持經濟成長。​
​
我們可以看得出來，這幾個段落都是圍繞著美中領導階層在文化價值上的差異。不過要注意的是，這裡即便闡述了「美中雙方照自己的文化去做事」的脈絡，但是【並沒有】說要去尊重或是接受對方的做法。所以如果要對這段談話下一個註解，其實就是美中雙方的「文明衝突」。​
​
至於對於中國在新疆人權侵犯的態度，拜登自己、他的國務卿布林肯都已經用「種族滅絕」（genocide）來描述，這其實已經是很明確的表態了，因為種族滅絕在國際上的定義是沒有辦法簡單用文化相對論來帶過的。一個是現在具有政策宣示性的聲明，一個是他闡述多年前與習近平的對話內容，哪一個比較能夠作為未來美國相關政策的預測工具，相信大家都知道該怎麼解讀。​
​
🔹 結束一中政策？​
​
另一個引起爭議的是在剛剛提到的句１中，講到了要結束一中政策：「so the idea I’m not going to speak out against what he's doing in Hong Kong … and Taiwan, trying to end the One-China policy by making it forceful …」。​
​
這裡蠻明顯是口誤，因為這幾句的主詞都是習近平（he），而習近平怎麼可能會去結束「一中政策」（One China Policy）？中國只有「一中原則」（One China Priciple），沒有一中政策。支持是口誤的另一個線索是，在這之後拜登第二次說到一中政策時，他句子都還沒說完，就立刻改口成「一胎化政策」（One Child Policy）。根據這幾個段落都在強調雙方在人權、民主價值上的差異，以及拜登過去一年以來的許多公開發言都有痴 … 吃螺絲的狀況，這裡講錯話的可能性是很高的。​
​
▍感想​
​
如果把這樣的談話跟先前的幾個重要談話來對照，例如「兩國關係建立在公平、對等與尊重主權的基礎上」、「美中文明有巨大的差異」這樣的文句，其實美國理解中國的方式有許多基本相同的元素在（大家猜猜看這是誰說的）。我們先前也有說過，美國兩大黨的外交政策觀點其實是很類似的，但大家在辯論的重點在於手段的使用。​
​
最重要的問題一直都是：中共高層（尤其習近平）真的會知道違反人權的後果嗎？美國該如何確保中共須要付出的代價？拜登在這場Town Hall當中並沒有詳細說明，因為他認為這是很複雜的事情，不打算在這個場合用短短幾分鐘來講。​
​
大家就繼續看所謂面對中國的「全政府途徑」（whole-of-government approach）會怎麼發展下去吧！​
​
​
✨ 觀測站推特：https://twitter.com/ustaiwanwatch​
✨ 贊助觀測站：https://ustaiwanwatch.soci.vip/

【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】

***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated，將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像：以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文（https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/）翻譯成英文，鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演，在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***

中文精簡版本：https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/

Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.

In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.

The possibility of realizing legislative majority

Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.

The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?

Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.

Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.

Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority

To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.

While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.

Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.

Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.

Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP

What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.

Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.

The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.

Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution

Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.

Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.

The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.

All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.

https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw

書名：《垃圾場長大的自學人生》談教育、自我探索、和終身學習
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
部落格好讀版：https://readingoutpost.com/educated/

一個社會邊緣的失學女孩，成為劍橋大學歷史學博士的震撼教育

從書評網站 goodreads 2018年度最佳選書的自傳分類裡，挑中了這本主題鮮明的自傳：沒有接受過正規教育的女孩，透過自學而成為劍橋大學歷史學博士的故事。這本書也屢被拿來跟《絕望者之歌》比較，類似的地方在於，作者都用自身的血淚經歷講述著菁英族群難以理解的「另一個世界」的樣貌。

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

本書摘要

《垃圾場長大的自學人生》作者 Tara Westover 生於一個信奉末日預言的摩門教家庭，父親從事垃圾回收，母親則是無照的接生婆和藥草密醫。作者 9歲拿到出生證明，17歲進入第一所正規學校，幾經波折後獲得劍橋大學博士學位。而這段成長歷程裡，那些令人匪夷所思的故事，以及作者度過許多煎熬時刻的心境，到後來透過教育擁抱全新的自我，成就了這本不平凡的自傳。

Tara 的父親不給孩子出生證明，也不允許他們接受正規學校教育。家庭成員舉凡車禍、燒傷等重大傷疾都不允許去醫院，必須在家裡接受草藥秘方治療。家中除了聖經之外，只有摩門教義書籍和童書，所謂的家庭自學大多師承這些書籍還有父親極端且扭曲的世界觀。

Tara 後來正式進入大學就讀，在一堂西方藝術課，她舉手問老師，說不認識畫作中的斜體字「 Holocaust」，全班鴉雀無聲且全然地沉默。後來她才知道這個字指的是二戰時期猶太人大屠殺。驚嚇於自己的無知與難以表達的歉意，她那個學期都沒有再舉手發問。

透過校園教育帶來的衝擊，Tara 也瞭解到多年來的奮鬥，為的就是認識世界的道理，去體驗真實的生活，進而構築出自我的思想和價值觀。自幼不斷被父親壓抑、否定的 Tara，頑抗堅毅地掙脫束縛後，感嘆道：

What my father wanted to cast from me wasn’t a demon: it was me.
我父親想從我身上驅逐的不是惡魔，而是「我」。

Tara 自幼活在父親的規則和權威之下，只要稍有不同的想法，就被視為背叛或不孝。她最後選擇和原生家庭分道揚鑣，與父母從此斷絕聯絡，擺脫長年的精神牢籠，邁入她嚮往的世界和決定自己的人生道路。或許在某些文化中這是大逆不道的舉動，然而接受教育後才發現真實自我的 Tara 是這麼說的：

You can love someone and still choose to say goodbye to them. You can miss a person every day, and still be glad that they are no longer in your life.
你可以既深愛著某人卻又選擇和他道離別。你可以每天都思念著他，卻又慶幸他們不再活在你的生命中

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

我最喜歡的段落

在這本書的中後段，Tara 跟教授討論是否能留在劍橋讀書的時候，讚嘆道：

This is a magical place, Everything shines here.
這裡是一個奇妙的地方，所有的東西都在發光。

童年的自卑情節讓 Tara 認為這些宏偉的事物都閃耀著光芒，除了她自己。但教授回應她的這段激勵和肯定，讓我反覆聽了好多回：

You must stop yourself from thinking like that. You are not fool’s gold, shining only under a particular light. Whomever you become,whatever you make yourself into, that is who you always were. It was always inyou. Not in Cambridge. In you. You are gold. And returning to BYU, or even to that mountain you came from, will not change who you are. It may change how others see you, it may even change how you see yourself—even gold appears dull in some lighting—but that is the illusion. And it always was.
妳必須停止那麼想，妳不是只有在特定光線下才會發光的假黃金。無論妳成為誰，無論妳轉變成什麼，妳就是妳。真實的妳就在妳的內心，而不是在劍橋，妳就是貨真價實的黃金。無論妳回到楊百翰大學或故鄉的山區，也不會改變妳是誰。這可能改變別人怎麼看妳，也可能改變妳怎麼看自己。真金即使在特定的光線下，也可能顯得暗淡無光，但這只是假象。

用中文成語形容就是：在涅貴不緇，曖曖內含光。不因為環境或出身而看低自己，這是需要多大的勇氣才能擁有的體悟。

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

什麼是教育

我認為這本書談的教育，重點不在於作者17歲後才接受的正規學校教育，這是一個極端案例下的偶然結果。

教育的重點在於，它是一種「自我探索」的過程。無論是求學階段或者出社會後的自學方式，都是為了能夠在多元開放的環境下，無論透過老師、教科書或經典讀物，盡可能去學習廣泛的知識和觀點，進而形塑自我的價值觀。

接受學校的正規教育，只是眾多教育途徑中，相對有效且普遍被接受的管道。這個觀念呼應到我自己想堅持的公益計畫，想幫助資源缺乏的孩子們可以學習和受教育，讓他們能得到最基本「自我探索」的權利。

Tara 透過教育進而實現自我探索，掌握了選擇自己命運的權利。在書本最終章她寫道：

The decisions I made after that moment were not the ones she would have made. They were the choices of a changed person, a new self. You could call this selfhood many things. Transformation. Metamorphosis. Falsity. Betrayal.I call it an education.
往後我做出的抉擇已經跟當初受到束縛的女孩無關。這是改變後的一個全新自我，所做出的新選擇。你可以說這種自我選擇是：轉換、蛻變、虛假、背叛。而我，稱之為教育。

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

是自我探索，也是終身學習

對於已經出社會的人們，從學校畢業不代表教育的終點。教育這個自我探索的過程沒有所謂終點，只有無垠無涯的終身學習。以我自身的經驗來說，透過閱讀是真正開啟視野之窗的金鑰，也是工作之餘可以維持學習動能的絕佳管道。以下舉幾個自己閱讀的例子也順便做為好書的分享。

從《真確》瞭解世界正在逐漸變好但也充滿許多挑戰，而非老一輩常掛在口中的一代不如一代、世界越來越糟的悲觀論定。

從《人類大歷史》認識人類的源起和文明的興衰，學會如何區分虛構的故事和真實的苦痛，不要單方面盲信而要抱持好奇心去學習和自省。

從《活出意義來》體悟到人生的意義是由自己去賦予，參透意義就能忍受任何苦痛，掌握逆境中仍能選擇人生態度的終極自由。

最後記下這本書給我最大的收穫，也是 Tara 深刻的感觸：「不要用別人描述自己的話語，來定義自己的人生；而是自己決定生活的意義，掌握人生的最高話語權」。

My life was narrated for me by others. Their voices were forceful, emphatic, absolute. It had never occurred to me that my voice might be as strong as theirs.