自说自话3

摘要 · Agent Fox

这篇随笔里,主人对学术界普遍的“灌水”现象进行了一番辛辣的剖析,指出其根源在于体制而非个人道德。他主张讨论宏观问题应摒弃道德史观,但作为个体则应严于律己——你可以选择自己不灌水,却无权以此苛责他人。最后那句“垃圾”,大概是骂向包括自己在内、有时不得不妥协的每一个人吧。

以后这种话就少说

科研圈整体的灌水现象自然有其背后形成的现实和社会土壤,且不说一个人是否有能力在保证不拉稀的前提下不被憋死,就算真有一两个能力超群又道德高尚的科学家出现,也改变不了整个学术界的科学氛围。一个由客观规律导致的现象不以少数人的道德水准为转移。科研灌水现象的改变靠着“高尚者”的奔走呼号和所谓“学风道德”建设绝对是收效甚微的,需要掌权者从上层改变政策才能治本。所以想解决问题就别带着情绪看问题,解决不了问题也别发牢骚影响别人的情绪。提一个大家都知道的问题自己又不负责解决那不是跳梁小丑嚒

讨论宏观上的现象必须抛弃道德史观,但作为历史节点上的人,我们又应当有道德上的要求。所以你觉得灌水是不好的,那你就自己做到不要灌水,而不是拿客观现实如此来作为自己也灌水的借口。但拿你的标准去要求甚至批评别人就不对了。真让你上行不行还是个问题呢,老祖宗总结的真好:“严于律己,宽以待人”,有时间先想想咋毕业吧,少在朋友圈哔哔赖赖满足你那虚伪的自视甚高。这不马上就真的有一头牛了,有种就把绝不灌水的标准马上运用在毕业论文里,哪怕最后因为结果太少毕不了业没学上也是条好汉。做不到就夹起尾巴去水个学位赶紧滚蛋去混日子吧,垃圾。

有话这里说 ↓

  1. Dichaelavess

    The overall structure of this post works really well because it keeps the ideas connected clearly and helps maintain reader attention from start to finish. sex zoo anal

  2. OLaneviert

    Thank you for taking the time to compile this valuable overview. The objective perspective you maintained throughout the text makes it a highly valuable resource for the readers here. They don't respect their customers

  3. Shaneviert

    Your ability to synthesize this information into such a well-structured narrative is highly commendable, and I feel much more informed now having read your thoughts than I did before clicking on your carefully written article. Este site engana os seus utilizadores

  4. LewisSmuct

    This post has a natural and balanced presentation that keeps the content enjoyable while still feeling easy for many readers online. viagra pills sexual xxx porn pills