我发现现在所谓的网络喷子，是不管是什么内容，什么观点，都会去喷。不知道大家有没有觉得，我们身边好多人也是这样，谈话讨论的时候，老是以打倒对方为目的来进行。（对人不对事）这是为什么呢？这是一种共性吗？还只是我是这么觉得。
嘴有多毒，心有多苦。真正幸福的人，内心早已是一片温柔。
因为中国语文和政治课本里不教逻辑学，只有大学的社科专业才有。&br&&br&当然主要还是网上看不见对方说话不忌讳啊，现实中敢这么干不早就抡拳头干仗了。
因为中国语文和政治课本里不教逻辑学，只有大学的社科专业才有。当然主要还是网上看不见对方说话不忌讳啊，现实中敢这么干不早就抡拳头干仗了。
因為能夠平和交流的人非常非常少。噴子之所以這樣做，首先是他們自身的素質低。有研究人員對網友進行過研究，這類人，有反社會人格，和很強的施虐傾向（當他們看到別人痛苦時，會獲得快感）。除此之外，他們受到的（邏輯）教育幾乎沒有。其次，他們甚至以此為樂，以自身的素質低下為榮。再次，進行人身攻擊沒有直接的損失（網路的匿名性讓他們口無遮攔），然後又能獲得精神上的快感，「何樂而不為呢？」他們這樣想。這種人一般心胸狹隘，不會包容別人。&br&&br&美國著名程序員、風險投資家、部落格和技術作家 Paul Graham 提出過一個「反駁金字塔」，出自他的文章《How to Disagree》。&img data-rawheight=&750& src=&/f7caffaccd0_b.png& data-rawwidth=&1000& class=&origin_image zh-lightbox-thumb& width=&1000& data-original=&/f7caffaccd0_r.png&&&br&中文版&br&&img data-rawwidth=&600& data-rawheight=&520& src=&/eaf458fc82dcc239_b.png& class=&origin_image zh-lightbox-thumb& width=&600& data-original=&/eaf458fc82dcc239_r.png&&&br&參考這個圖，題主所說的人，應該是處於這張圖的最下面兩層。&br&&p&在 Paul Graham 看來，不贊同分為 7 個層次，辱罵最低，反駁主要論點最高。其中「辱罵、攻擊特質、批評語氣和反對（Name-calling、Ad Hominem、Responding to Tone 和 Contradiction）」這四個層次缺乏不贊同的核心要素「理由」，因而這四個層次的不贊同言論可以視之為垃圾言論，尤以辱罵和攻擊特質最被人不齒。&/p&&p&而「駁斥、反駁原文和反駁主要論點（Counterargument、Refutation 和 Refuting the Central Point）」則是可以有說服力的不贊同，尤以最後一種最為有力。其實這裡不贊同的層次和不贊同的難度也有一定關係，畢竟找理由找論據要比罵一句「腦殘」要難得多，在著名的《羅伯特議事規則》中，反對人身攻擊和辯論必須圍繞當前待決議題是其必須的議事規則。事實上，在互聯網討論之中，這樣的原則更應該被推崇，因為在互聯網討論或辯論之中，不同觀點者絕大多數情況是不瞭解對方的，所以辯論圍繞議題則是辯論正常進行下去的基礎。而對我而言，一旦辯論或者討論中出現人身攻擊，即意味著辯論的終止。&/p&&p&不管是「反駁金字塔」也好，還是《羅伯特議事規則》也好，都涉及到了和不同觀點者交流的一個問題，這樣的問題在互聯網之中表現得更為嚴重。對於志在正常討論交流的人而言，肯定會遇到「反駁金字塔」中低層次的反對者，許多情況下，這些低層次反駁者不是不願拿出理由，而是拿不出理由來反駁。&/p&令人悲哀的是，其實非常少人能夠做到平和的交流。素質低下的人真的好多……尤其是在大陸的新聞網站的評論區和論壇，比如騰訊新聞、網易新聞、今日頭條等。當然，不只是中國大陸，在台灣的YAHOO新聞的評論區，Facebook社群等地方，也有很多人是口吐髒話或者互相人身攻擊的。國外，比如歐美發達國家的新聞網站、視頻網站和論壇也是這樣的情況，永遠是噴子居多，留言不超過兩句話，放嘴炮的留言是大多數。&br&&br&可以看到，在這個嘴砲金字塔裡，越往下面積越大，代表的人數越多。很悲哀的是，其實大多數人都是處於這個金字塔的底層。而頂尖那部分人是少數的。&br&&br&在金字塔底層的人，他們往往有以下幾種流氓邏輯：&br&&br&「我不關心你說了什麼，只關心你是誰，要是你這個人有問題或者我不喜歡，你說的什麼都是錯的。」&br&「長得醜的人說什麼都是錯的。」&br&「因為你的觀點和我不一樣，所以你三觀不正。」&br&「因為你這句話說錯了，所以你全篇都是錯的。」&br&「因為你為他說了話，所以你肯定是和他一伙的。」&br&「因為你沒罵他，所以你在洗地。」&br&「因為你說的事情我做不到，所以你在裝逼。」&br&「因為他做錯了一件事，所以他一無是處。」&br&「因為他做對了一件事，所以他完美無暇。」&br&「只要我認為你人品有問題，只要我認為你違背了道德，那你即將和曾經說過的每一句話，每一個標點符號，都是錯的。我覺得對的就是對的，我覺得錯的就是錯的。」&br&&br&可以看出來，這些人的邏輯常識，幾乎沒有。&br&有一次，我在Twitter po文說我支持同性戀平權，結果就有不知道哪來的恐同直男癌跳出來罵我，說「你這個同性戀，屁眼子被****（各種髒話）」在他們眼中，支持同性戀平權的人就是同性戀。這是很可笑的。其實我是無性戀者。我認同平權是因為我覺得人人生而平等。相反，還有很多異性戀者雙性戀者也是支持同性戀平權的，他們可不見得是同性戀。我想，這種噴子的目的，只是為了發洩自己的恐同情緒罷了。&br&&br&還有女人被強姦了怪女人騷的。有一次在今日頭條看到一個女生被強姦、然後罪犯被抓的新聞，結果評論區全是怪女人太騷，而不是怪男人的言論。甚至還有很多評論是女性網友發佈的。研究一下那些男人的發言記錄，他們看的新聞都是和女人有關，與色情擦邊，各種女明星花邊新聞和女子被強姦，評論裡全都是意淫、污言穢語。&br&&br&觀察他們的發言記錄，發現他們都是實實在在的活人……真是看得我毛骨悚然。&br&&br&這幾種類型的噴子，在騰訊新聞等地方出現得最多，常常幾千個評論全是這些反智的言論，看起來頗為壯觀。&br&&br&他們遇到觀點不同的人，不是去辯駁，而是以人廢言或者辱罵。他們最大的特點，是玻璃心，他們無法接受不同的觀點，戾氣很重，無法與人平等交流。&br&&br&由於人性的緣故，每個人都有可能會成為金字塔的底端，畢竟人無完人。&br&&br&而那些成為噴子的人，他們最愛做的事是說髒話，罵人。&br&&br&如果在現實裡，直接無視就好了。&br&在網路上，比如在知乎遇到這種人，直接無視，或者舉報＋拉黑就好了。&br&（再次感謝知乎的舉報功能。(?_?)）&br&&br&回復一般都不需要回復。&br&如果你要回復他們，只會讓他們更猖狂，因為他們就是喜歡看你跳腳來獲得快樂。&br&&br&讓他們自生自滅好啦。&br&&br&人之智識固有高下，又有高下殊絕者。高之見下，如登高望遠，無不盡見；下之視高，如在牆外欲窺牆里。若高下相去差近猶可與語；若相去遠甚，不如勿告，徒費口頰舌爾。《世範·處己》&br&&br&「為什麼我要拉黑別人？」&br&第一，不想浪費時間浪費口舌。&br&第二，不想沒收到學費就教育別人。&br&&br&下面是圖片出處的原文。&br&&br&The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.&br&&br&Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.&br&&br&The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.&br&&br&If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:&br&&br&DH0. Name-calling.&br&&br&This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:&br&&br&u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!&br&&br&But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like&br&The author is a self-important dilettante.&br&is really nothing more than a pretentious version of &u r a fag.&&br&&br&DH1. Ad Hominem.&br&&br&An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:&br&&br&Of course he would say that. He's a senator.&br&This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you s and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?&br&&br&Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.&br&&br&DH2. Responding to Tone.&br&&br&The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.&br&&br&I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.&br&&br&Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.&br&&br&So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.&br&&br&DH3. Contradiction.&br&&br&In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.&br&&br&This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:&br&&br&I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.&br&Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.&br&&br&DH4. Counterargument.&br&&br&At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.&br&&br&Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.&br&&br&There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.&br&&br&DH5. Refutation.&br&&br&The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.&br&&br&To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a &smoking gun,& a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.&br&&br&While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.&br&&br&DH6. Refuting the Central Point.&br&&br&The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.&br&&br&Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.&br&&br&Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:&br&&br&The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:&br&&br&&quotation&&br&&br&But this is wrong for the following reasons...&br&The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.&br&&br&What It Means&br&&br&Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.&br&&br&But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.&br&&br&The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.&br&&br&Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.&br&But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.&br&If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't rea they do it because they can't help it.
因為能夠平和交流的人非常非常少。噴子之所以這樣做，首先是他們自身的素質低。有研究人員對網友進行過研究，這類人，有反社會人格，和很強的施虐傾向（當他們看到別人痛苦時，會獲得快感）。除此之外，他們受到的（邏輯）教育幾乎沒有。其次，他們甚至以此…
已有帐号？
无法登录？
社交帐号登录
长风破浪会有时欧冠小组赛最后一轮比赛结果和最终积分
　　新华网北京１２月６日体育专电　２０１２—２０１３赛季欧洲足球冠军联赛于当地时间５日进行了Ｅ组至Ｈ组的８场比赛，比赛结果和赛后积分榜如下（主队列前）：
　　切尔西队胜努德塞兰队，６：１；
　　顿涅茨克矿工队负于尤文图斯队，０：１。
　　排名　　球队　　　　　场次　　　胜　　平　　负　　进球　　失球　　积分
　　＊１　　尤文图斯　　　　６　　　３　　３　　０　　１２　　　４　　１２
　　＊２　　顿涅茨克矿工　　６　　　３　　１　　２　　１２　　　８　　１０
　　＃３　　切尔西　　　　　６　　　３　　１　　２　　１６　　１０　　１０
　　　４　　努德塞兰　　　　６　　　０　　１　　５　　　４　　２２　　　１
（注：＊代表小组出线球队，＃代表参加欧罗巴联赛球队。）
】【】【】【牡丹奇迹】〖交流〗好多人都骂袁芹狗逼，这是为什么呢？_牡丹奇迹吧_百度贴吧
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&签到排名：今日本吧第个签到，本吧因你更精彩，明天继续来努力！
本吧签到人数：0可签7级以上的吧50个
本月漏签0次！成为超级会员，赠送8张补签卡连续签到：天&&累计签到：天超级会员单次开通12个月以上，赠送连续签到卡3张
关注：67,915贴子：
【牡丹奇迹】〖交流〗好多人都骂袁芹狗逼，这是为什么呢？
狗杂种袁芹现在重新开服也骗不到多少钱了，玩家们都学聪明了。对了，现在那些托怎么不出来给你说好话了啊，以前记得每次改动圈钱就会有一帮托出来忽悠拍马屁的，现在呢？咋不敢出来了么
都来说说。。。 保证不...
来我的电话...
现在的盟主是内衣张《反...
盗墓笔记镇楼（虽然是...
1.首先遇到的就是注册问...
先来几张阳狗的以往做代...
新开的绝舞奇迹人越来越少了，哈哈，早就在哥的预料之内，大概过四五个月就会单机了吧，然后撑到新年的六月份，合作区的时间就到了，到时候还签约吗？如果签约还要给十万的保护费噢
哈哈，笑死我了，会员第一名充值的才一万也好意思弄排行榜出来啊，小服就小服
搞不懂那些傻逼
被骗了 一次又一次，
还有人充值 我笑死了！
托比一大堆， 玩个游戏那么累干嘛，一个垃圾服！搞不懂那些充值的傻逼！
贴吧热议榜
使用签名档&&
保存至快速回贴国米欧冠小组赛战绩糟糕有内因 这只是一支“假国米”_国际足坛-意大利_NIKE新浪竞技风暴_新浪网
国米欧冠小组赛战绩糟糕有内因 这只是一支“假国米”
　　讯　12月11日米兰消息，进入欧冠16强的其他15支球队没有人愿意在周五的抽签中碰到那个最强的小组第二--国际米兰。8分涉险出线，这在库珀、扎切罗尼和曼奇尼时代都是罕见的糟糕战绩，但穆里尼奥并不担心16强淘汰赛，即使国米最有可能碰上曼联。在实力最差的一个小组勉强出线的国米，究竟有什么底气呢？
　　小组赛并非真实国米
　　如果仅仅从2胜2平2负积8分以小组第二身份出线的战绩来看，这支国米根本没有实力与曼联、利物浦、巴萨这样的豪门对抗。要知道，国米与塞浦路斯鱼腩阿诺索西斯竟然还有一场3-3的平局。曼奇尼执教的国米连续两个赛季在欧冠1/8决赛被淘汰，莫拉蒂寄希望于穆里尼奥提高国米在欧冠的战绩，但小组赛的表现让人们看不到一点希望。
　　本赛季联赛中，国米只是0-1输给了米兰，其他比赛保持不败，而且最近6轮面对强敌均获得胜利。欧冠面对实力并不强的不来梅、帕纳辛纳科斯和阿诺索西斯，2胜2平2负的成绩显然不正常。穆里尼奥不断拿弱队试验阵容是成绩不稳的主要原因。六场欧冠小组赛，穆里尼奥一直试图试验成功433阵型，但结果适得其反。
　　首战客场2-0击败帕纳辛纳科斯，国米433阵型取得了梦幻开局，坎比亚索、维埃拉、萨内蒂坐镇中场，伊布中锋，身边是夸雷斯马和小曼奇尼。次战1-1平不来梅还是433，不过中场换成了蒙塔里、坎比亚索和斯坦科维奇，前锋是阿德、伊布和巴洛特利。第三场1-0小胜阿诺索西斯，中场与前一场不变，三个前锋是阿德、伊布和小曼奇尼。
　　最离谱的是第四场，国米主场对阵阿诺索西斯，狂人发狂排出了424的4前锋阵型，伊布与巴洛特利位居中间，小曼奇尼与夸雷斯马出任边锋，中场只有坎比亚索与斯坦科维奇。结果，国米与阿诺索西斯踢成疯狂的3-3。第五场0-1输给帕纳辛纳科斯，穆里尼奥试图重演首战美梦，首发与首战完全相同，但夸雷斯马和小曼奇尼并未给伊布太多支援。最后一场1-2输给不来梅，阵型依然是433，但阿德低迷，而穆里尼奥对于布尔迪索的使用导致失利。
　　反观国米在联赛中大多使用更为稳妥的4312阵型，至少国米依靠着4312在联赛中取得了6连胜。从欧冠的比赛过程和结果来看，穆里尼奥想给国米插上两个飞翔的翅膀(小曼奇尼、夸雷斯马)的想法并没有变为美妙的现实。
　　穆里尼奥的功底
　　穆里尼奥率领波尔图夺冠的年代毕竟有点久远了，但他在斯坦福桥毕竟两次将切尔西带进了欧冠四强，穆里尼奥在欧冠淘汰赛阶段的各种能力还是值得信赖。而穆里尼奥本人也早就说过，“真正的欧冠是从二月份开始的”。
　　联赛的六连胜令意大利媒体对于穆里尼奥的评价也转了风向，《米兰体育报》分析认为，穆里尼奥特别擅长打淘汰赛，所以对于国米能否进入欧冠八强不必过于悲观。文章认为，欧冠淘汰赛不仅仅比拼的是球队实力，主教练的排兵布阵和战术安排固然也很重要，但很多场外因素比如心理战、球队更衣室气氛调整等等也将决定比赛结果。穆里尼奥应该在上述几方面都算是高手，关键就看1/8决赛的对手是不是专“克”国米了。
　　在淘汰赛阶段，穆里尼奥很可能会回归稳妥的4312阵型，主要问题就是谁和伊布搭档锋线，如果阿德和巴洛特利无法在联赛中尽快展现能力，那么穆里尼奥很可能将目光投向克鲁斯。屡屡救主的克鲁斯在欧冠小组赛期间受伤，加上与穆里尼奥关系紧张，也没有得到使用。外界盛传克鲁斯可能冬季走人的消息并不准确。
　　在前腰位置上，斯坦科维奇的发挥飘忽不定，面对弱队的时候，斯坦科维奇的防守会起到作用，但与强队对抗中，德扬的进攻组织能力实在一般。一直不受重用的智利人西门内斯难堪大任，这个前腰是穆里尼奥最头疼的问题。
　　另外，国米在欧冠小组赛糟糕的防守也有一部分原因是萨穆埃尔当初因伤没有报名。但随着萨穆埃尔康复充实到阵容中，应该会提升国米的防守能力。
　　(内拉)
不支持Flash
相关专题：专题　|专题　　
更多关于&&的新闻
<FONT COLOR=#8f-12-12 15:25
<FONT COLOR=#8f-12-12 15:18
<FONT COLOR=#8f-12-12 15:08
<FONT COLOR=#8f-12-12 12:21
<FONT COLOR=#8f-12-12 11:10
<FONT COLOR=#8f-12-12 09:46
<FONT COLOR=#8f-12-12 03:26
<FONT COLOR=#8f-12-12 02:49
<FONT COLOR=#8f-12-11 18:38
不支持Flash