China’s huayuquan is sometimes translated as China’s right to speak. When I read an article about it in a 2009 article in the Communist Party’s ideological journal Qiushi I got the impression that huayuquan meant China should have the dominant voice in any discourse about China. Since that time there have been many articles about huayuquan in Party and other publications.
University of Wisconsin Professor Edward Friedman suggested “discourse power” in an email. That is the best translation I have seen. I saw a similar suggestion online (machine translated below) in an online comment from the anonymous #For reference only in a discussion of this translation problem.
This reminds me of the Party emphasis on the Party’s and China’s huayuquan 话语权 literally right to speak but seems to me having read the Qiushi article below having the meaning of assuming the dominant role in discourse on a particular topic close to China’s interests. Perhaps that is what anyone speaking out hopes for, but the ambition for ideological dominance does seem pronounced.
The Party’s theoretical journal Seeking Truth Qiushi in 2009 published an article “Some Thoughts on the “Huayuquan” 关于“话语权”的几点思考 in 2009.
A Baidu (China’s answer to Wikipedia） article developed from the Qiuhshi article had an interesting graphic:
Stressing the importance of speaking up for China’s Truth both domestically and internationally, comes a 1962 quote from Mao Zedong “Anyone wanting to overthrow a political régime must create public opinion and do some preparatory ideological work. This applies to counter-revolutionary as well as to revolutionary classes.” Speech At The Tenth Plenum Of The Eighth Central Committee
Why does our party attach great importance to the right to speak?
… Our party has always attached importance to the role of the right to speak. Comrade Mao Zedong said: “Anyone wanting to overthrow a political régime must create public opinion and do some preparatory ideological work. This applies to counter-revolutionary as well as to revolutionary classes.” Comrade Deng Xiaoping stressed: We must vigorously strengthen the party’s leadership over the ideological front. Comrade Jiang Zemin said: The correct orientation of public opinion is to the great advantage of the Party and the people; incorrect guidance of public opinion is the calamity for the Party and the people. Comrade Hu Jintao further pointed out that the correct guidance of public opinion, benefits the party and the country and the people; public opinion guides wrongly harms the party, the country and the people. The correct guidance of public opinion mentioned above is the key factor determining whether or not the right of speak can affect people’s support or opposition to something and the strength of their beliefs.
Stressing the importance of speaking up for China’s Truth both domestically and internationally, comes a 1962 quote from Mao Zedong “Anyone wanting to overthrow a political régime must create public opinion and do some preparatory ideological work. This applies to counter-revolutionary as well as to revolutionary classes.” Speech At The Tenth Plenum Of The Eighth Central Committee
Second, we must make sure that we are putting out the right message. The so-called right message is to guide public opinion in a direction consistent with objective facts, the Party’s basic theory, general line, and policies, and is in the fundamental interests of our country and nation. If the guidance we give is biased or even the opposite of what it should be, the stronger will be the influence, guidance, and dominance of the right to speak that we exercise, the more dire the consequences and the greater the harm. In order to grasp the proper direction, we must include all pertinent points.
For example, if some people who advocate that China should diversify its guiding ideology, it must be clearly emphasized that it is necessary to adhere to the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field. If some people that advocate that China should pursue democratic socialism and capitalism, it must be clearly emphasized: Only socialism can save China, and only socialism with Chinese characteristics can enable China to develop.
Some people advocate that China should engage in “division of three powers” in its governance. We must clearly emphasize that: we must adhere to the People’s Congress system. Some argue that China should imitate the West. Discussions on the party system must clearly emphasize: the multi-party cooperation and political consultation system led by the Communist Party of China must be adhered to. Some people advocate that China wants to privatize or that there should be 100% public ownership. Here it must be clearly emphasized that: In the primary stage of socialism.
China must adhere to the basic economic system with public ownership as the main body and the common development of an economy with multiple types of ownership. In response to the tendency of some individual to exaggerate the problems that have arisen from reform and opening up, we must clearly point out that reform and opening up is what put China on the road to becoming a strong country. We must unswervingly continue down the road of reform and opening. Only when we make our view clear and and correct can our right to speak out exert the influence that we expect.
..It is particularly important to point out that in the today’s world, with the ever increasing intellectual and cultural exchanges, contacts and confrontations, and the various contradictions between political, economic and cultural interests that arise, the situation is becoming more and more complex. Therefore the fight to guide the ideological arena is more difficult, the task of holding onto it right to speak up for itself has become more difficult. Although more and more countries in the world are increasingly identifying with China ’s development model, development path, and development achievements, and their desire to cooperate with China is becoming stronger, international hostile forces always describe China ’s successful development as a “threat “.
In fact, the internationalization of hostile forces and the attempt to divide China have never stopped. One of its important methods is to use their own powerful right to speak to carry out ideological infiltration. This infiltration echoes the chatter of China’s domestic opponents who would deny the party’s leadership, oppose the socialist system, reject the policy of reform and opening, and reject of the party’s theory and line policies. In order to effectively resist the political conspiracies of international hostile forces, to better use the socialist core value system to lead diversified social ideological trends, and to consolidate the ideological foundation of the nation’s people’s unity and struggle, we must also work harder to hold on to our right to speak out.
The 2009 Qiushi ideological article-transformed-into-Baidu-encyclopedia-entry ends quoting a short passage [which I bolded in the English translation] from Mao’s 1942 essay “Oppose Stereotyped Party Writing” and goes on to explicate it.
Communists who really want to do propaganda must consider their audience and bear in mind those who will read their articles and slogans or listen to their speeches and their talk; otherwise they are in effect resolving not to be read or listened to by anyone. Many people often take it for granted that what they write and say can be easily understood by everybody, when it is not so at all. How can people understand them when they write and speak in Party stereotypes? The saying “to play the lute to a cow” implies a gibe at the audience. If we substitute the idea of respect for the audience, the gibe is turned against the player. Why should he strum away without considering his audience?
What is worse, he is producing a Party stereotype as raucous as a crow, and yet he insists on cawing at the masses. When shooting an arrow, one must aim at the target; when playing the lute, one must consider the listener; how, then, can one write articles or make speeches without taking the reader or the audience into account? Suppose we want to make friends with a person, whoever he may be, can we become bosom friends if we do not understand each other’s hearts, do not know each other’s thoughts? It simply will not do for our propaganda workers to rattle on without investigating, studying and analysing their audience.
I get the impression from this Qiushi article (I compare the article and encyclopedia article a few years ago — they are identical but I can’t find the Qiushi article online anymore) of a Party on the ideological defensive in media matters wanting to go over to the offensive to “tell China’s story” to the world. I imagine that that must carry over to the more assertive diplomacy we are seeing under Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi.
I am intrigued to read Mao Zedong’s words of 1942 — especially those further down after the short quote — and consider whether the harder edged diplomatic style now coming into fashion in Chinese diplomacy might be counterproductive. Chinese diplomats are caught between Xi Jinping, the Make China Great Again jingoistic faction in China today and a difficult foreign audience. Keeping the boss happy is important.
Just how to translate huayuquan has been a difficulty in translation for the past decade.
Frustrations about China’s voice not being powerful enough to persuade others of its rightness have been growing. Recently, the US government-supported broadcaster Radio Free Asia put a dramatic cartoon of one of China’s top diplomats and former PRC Ambassador to the US, Yang Jiechi, who took part in the US-China bilateral discussions in Anchorage, Alaska, apparently on an evening when the moon was full.
Recently, Professor Andreas Fulda of the University of Nottingham in his article “Anyone who does not sing Beijing’s song will be punished” wrote
In this German-language report Friederike Boege and Michaela Wiegel—two journalists from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ)—write about the Chinese Communist Party’s attempts to ‘control the global narrative about China’ with the help of ‘defamation and intimidation’. This report published on 24 March 2021 is remarkable for a number of reasons. In the past there has been a great reluctance among German elites to pick a fight with the Chinese Communist Party. But now that the Chinese party-state has sanctioned the widely respected German think tank Merics things will change.
‘Control the global narrative about China’ sounds right these latter frustrating days. Enough frustration to make reasonable diplomats, stuck between Xi and a hard foreign place, to start growing fur and fangs and turning into diplo-werewolves.
One might say that the definition is evolving through practice. Just as Mao Zedong used to say “Practice is the only criterion for testing the truth of a proposition.” Shíxiàn shì shíjiàn shì jiǎnyàn zhēnlǐ de wéiyī biāozhǔn 实现是实践是检验真理的唯一标准, After his death Mao’s opponents (or maybe just those with a slightly paler shade of red) used the same saying to dump (oh, to be fair to elegantly subvert it by redefining many words) Mao Zedong Thought in a neat reversal of course called “reform and opening” .
Using DeepL machine translation, I copied a translation of two intriguing articles on this topic from two different websites. This machine translation is a bit awkward in places but generally quite readable.
To be kept in mind is that people in China need to register so that they are easily identifiable on social media. When I left Chengdu in 2012, on many websites the IP address of the person making a comment would appear next to their comments, perhaps to inspire due caution in those wavering ideologically. I haven’t seen that more recently.
Thanks to a kind email from an academic , I got the most plausible translation I have seen is the perhaps Foucaultian inspired “discourse power“.
Below, a DeepL machine translation of an excerpt from the discussion “话语权”怎么翻译成英文？
How to translate the Chinese expression “huayuquan” into English?
Investment and financing lawyer / dream maker / amateur commentator
17 people agreed with this answer
It’s easy to use the expression have a say in sth. say when it’s a noun can mean “right to speak”, “right to speak”.
For example, a question on Quora: “Do actors have a say in character development in a television show?”
Similarly, you can also use the expression have a voice in sth.
Edited on 2017-09-05
22 people agreed with this answer
#For reference only
I think you can use discourse. Wikipedia’s entry on discourse [note, ref to earlier, now edited-out text] explains it as follows.
Foucault further stated that power is always present and can both produce and constrain the truth. Discourse according to Foucault (1977, 1980, 2003) is related to power as it operates by rules of exclusion. , what can be spoken of; ritual, where and how one may speak; and the privileged, who may speak.Wikipedia entry “Discourse”
Presumably, this means.
– Discourse is inseparable from power (not right)
– Discourse (and power) are rules that are specific and limited.
– Discourse can be a scope of discussion: what can be discussed, how it should be discussed, where it should be discussed, and who can discuss it.
For example, a minor can complain to a classmate, “I have no say in the family! I can’t raise any objections at all!”
Hmm, so if it doesn’t mean anything about freedom of speech, the right to speak ….. I think we can use discourse to translate the right to speak.
But although Foucault (Foucault) proposed the concept of discourse is quite broad, I think this translation is still more applicable to a very written language it …… After all, if the other party does not understand Foucault, it may also be more difficult to grasp the meaning, and it may not necessarily be a suitable translation.
Edited on 2017-06-22
Goosey Zhang Translator, aiming to become a big translator before I die
5 people agreed with this answer
It seems that there is no widely accepted translation yet, but wiki translates this word as “power of speech”, which feels more appropriate and is a more concise and meaningful translation.
I was looking up this word, so I replied.
Edited on 2018-05-19
2 people agreed with the answer
Just saw “leading voices”, feel quite suitable to express the meaning of this “right to speak”. (voice释义: the right to express an opinion.)
例句：If we had gone back to the eighth century, the leading philosophical voices in society would have been Buddhist. (Meaning that during the Tang Dynasty, Buddhism had the right to speak in Chinese thought at that time.)
Edited on 2017-10-26
END MACHINE TRANSLATION
[A long March 2020 article expressing frustration that China gets no respect. That feeling must have been especially acute during the period between China fumbling the coronavirus ball in Wuhan and much of the rest of the world fumbling the coronavirus ball in their own countries.]
BEGIN MACHINE TRANSLATION of article plus some of the first of the 143 comments on the article in 别不信，中国在国际舆论场上的话语权约等于零 on the Zhihu website.
You Better Believe It: China’s voice in the international court of public opinion is about equal to zero
Public number: Half Foot Spring
427 people agreed with the article
In the international social opinion, if the discourse power of Britain and the United States, led by the United States, is 100 points, then the discourse power held by China is less than 1 point, and sometimes even negative.
This ratio is not exaggerated in any way, our voice is that weak.
What is even more frustrating is that even within China, there are a large number of people who believe that there is far more discourse in the United Kingdom and the United States than in their own media, and these people often present themselves as elite intellectuals and boast of independent thinking.
These “everyone is drunk and I am awake” masters of truth and falsehood are often very simple: what the Chinese say = false, what the foreigners say = true, what the Chinese oppose = brainwashed and hopeless, what the foreigners refute = freedom, independence, justice and truth.
Yesterday I posted the full text of the State Department’s 2019 U.S. Human Rights Violations Report in my column, which drew a lot of comments throughout the day. You can leave a comment in the comments section in conjunction with the report, and carefully experience what it means to have a strong or weak discourse.
tuna fish: 2019 U.S. Human Rights Abuse Report
Of course, I’m not singing praises with my eyes closed; our media does have a lot of problems, but there’s a simple logic here: our problems don’t mean our opponents are perfect.
But we often see the fact that a large number of self-proclaimed elites, because they don’t trust their own media, turn to what foreign media say as the embodiment of justice; treating their own authority (People’s Daily, CCTV, reports issued by any orthodox state agency) like dirt, and holding foreign authority (reports issued by foreign state departments, newspapers, whatever) as a standard.
This situation should be brought to our attention. If we want to achieve true independent thinking, we should treat all reports from all institutions equally and discuss them in a calm manner.
These words may sound abstract, so let’s take an example in the context of this Sino-US fight over the Human Rights Report.
Since 1977, the United States has been publishing the Country Reports on Human Rights, which are reports submitted by the U.S. State Department to Congress on the human rights situation in countries and regions other than the United States.
This matter itself is very much debatable.
Why does the United States publish only foreign countries and not its own human rights reports?
Whether it is a position of prioritizing its own affairs or a position of caring equally about all human rights situations in the world, it should release a survey of the situation in its own country, so why not?
Furthermore, what makes the U.S. put itself in the position of a judge to judge other countries?
Combined with their behavior of not releasing their own country reports, do they think they are at the top of human rights protection and are a model for all countries?
Is this arrogance of theirs backed up by objective facts? –don’t know, because they don’t have their own country reports.
Then again, the so-called human rights situation covers a wide range of individual rights, civil rights, and other rights, and requires a lot of critical information collection and argumentative research, and where does the U.S. get this information?
There is no doubt that much of the information in this area is official data related to the livelihood of the country, so how would they have the appropriate authorization to access it?
If it is a long-term special study of a particular country, it may be possible.
But the U.S. points the way, and they produce human rights reports on many countries. How did they manage to have all the important data on China, Russia, Syria, and a host of other countries at their fingertips?
There are only two possibilities, either the U.S. overstepped its authority to monitor important information from various countries (to put it bluntly, they are spies), or their sources are not trustworthy and are made up.
There are so many problems with the report itself that a truly independent-minded, objective and dispassionate person should have been in a very critical warning mindset before reading it.
However, the fact is that for a long time, the mentality of many people in the country has been to listen to the teachings with fear and respect.
At the very least, they have accepted the existence of such a Human Rights Report without questioning the many irrationalities of the process that produced it.
Many people feel superior just by knowing that there is such a thing as the Human Rights Report, and that they are sober/independent thinking/open-minded to the world, and so on.
As for its content, if not as a golden rule, at least as an unquestionably fair and objective source.
So, whenever a report says something bad about us, we are ashamed of it and feel that human rights in our country are bad and that our people are in dire straits.
Our country actually also issued a report to counteract, but also laughable, dead duck mouth, embarrassment to the international community.
As for the U.S. not reporting, that’s not a problem, because the U.S. human rights situation is certainly a great ah.
But our country’s report is really so bad?
Is the human rights situation in the United States really that good?
Let’s take a look at how our country’s human rights reports come out.
Our State Council Information Office began publishing “The Human Rights Record of the United States” in 1998 as a response to the U.S. Country Reports on Human Rights that criticized China.
In other words, they scolded us first, and we returned the favor. Otherwise, wouldn’t we have called them names and not returned the favor? Or even own up to it?
Even in this year’s fierce brawl, it was only after the Americans released their report on March 11 this year that we responded on March 13.
The interval is only one day, which means that we have already prepared well, and there is no active provocation: they do not send, we do not send, but if they send, do not blame us for being rude.
Even the Internet cursing war, there is a first tease the bitch principle, the international you and me is no exception.
So, even if this round of fighting is full of confrontational implications, our country is fully justified: if it is really a purely academic discussion, the human rights situation in the United States, as one of the most powerful and populous countries in the world, is indispensable information, and if you don’t post it, we will make it up to you.
Secondly, you always comment on how other countries are doing, but if you yourself are not doing well, does it mean that your own standards and methods are faulty? Then your opinion will have to be discounted. This is like you give others tutoring homework, the results of a closer look at your own is a dregs, then your guidance we can forgive difficult to accept.
Finally, as a political fight, do you only allow you to say I, not I say you?
Passive and beaten?
Isn’t that bullshit?
From any perspective, it is only right that we publish such a report. But as you can see from the comments section of the report article, some of our compatriots feel from the bottom of their hearts that it is ridiculous for their own government to do so.
How this mentality is formed, whether it is reasonable, and what kind of contrast in discourse between China and the United States is implied, you can consider it yourself.
Look again at the content of the report.
The very first paragraph of our national report emphasizes the sources of information that
The information on which this report is based comes from a variety of publicly released data, reports and research results. The U.S. report is “an annual country report on human rights based on a patchwork of anecdotal and hearsay material.”
This is the source issue that has been mentioned above.
When the U.S. reviews the world, either they are monitoring all countries, which is already a crime against the sovereignty of others, or they are making things up, and this year’s report seems to be more of the latter.
If you are interested in reading the U.S. report, you will find two features, first, self-talk, and second, case-by-case fiction.
What do you mean by self-talk? It is to quote oneself.
A lot of data and conclusions in their report come from such “authoritative media” as Radio Free Asia and New Tang Dynasty. What do these media outlets do? They are paid by the U.S. to scold China.
In their reports, China’s economy collapses every three days, its leaders have infighting every five days, its people are in dire straits, and anyone who says anything bad about the government is immediately tortured and disappears from the face of the earth.
It’s not that I’m vilifying them. Any Chinese who has lived overseas knows what kind of “newspapers” I’m talking about.
In order to increase the dissemination, they often put their own newspapers on the street corners everywhere for free distribution, and international students often take one home to pad the tablecloth when they buy food.
So this is hilarious: the U.S. government pays for a bunch of mouthpieces to write about China, and then quotes them to write their own reports?
Don’t disbelieve me, that’s really how they do it.
With this kind of operation, their reports can say anything they want, and the national version is open to interpretation. All it takes is one hand from these “media” and the fabrication and exaggeration becomes a fact.
For example, the “shocking story” that there are terrorist concentration camps on our frontiers where all citizens of a certain religion are locked up for violent “re-education” is the work of Radio Free Asia. This story has been widely circulated in the West and accepted by many Westerners as the truth.
Next, what is meant by case fiction? It is a large number of individual cases to illustrate how bad the human rights situation is in China, and each persecuted person’s miserable experience can be written into a novel.
Of course, in order to protect them from further persecution, their personal information is to be hidden and obscured from you, and impossible to find out.
Whether this kind of report is shooting arrows before drawing targets, and whether it is objective and fair, everyone can have their own judgment. But in terms of dissemination effectiveness and gaining credibility, this kind of report, and all the propaganda techniques that the U.S. is used to, is quite effective.
A statement on Reddit, a world-renowned English-language forum, that China is the next Nazi Germany has received more than 50,000 likes
The number one comment on Reddit, which deplores the lack of human rights in China, was liked by more than 5,000 people.
Deep in the concentration camps, no human rights, deep in the water, life is unbearable, but still be brainwashed to be happy, this is the image of our Chinese people in the hearts of the majority of English-speaking countries. This is the image of Chinese people in the minds of most English-speaking countries. Even if the city is closed for the epidemic, it is the ironclad evidence of disregard for human rights and restriction of citizens’ movement.
The New York Times is worried about the country, a modern version of the tyranny of the tiger: China’s strong fight against the epidemic has been effective, but are these extreme measures more frightening than the virus itself?
Let’s look at China’s Human Rights Report, which cites public speeches, UN reports, and studies by America’s own neutral think tanks (such as the Pew Research Center). Regardless of anything else, the sources of information alone are superior in terms of objective evidence.
The information gathered in this way reveals many problems with the human rights situation in the U.S. Take one random piece of information about poverty.
The problem of child poverty is staggering. There are still 12.8 million children living in poverty in the United States, with as many as 3.5 million children under the age of 5 living in poverty, 1.6 million of whom live in extreme poverty. The Children’s Defense Fund of America criticizes, “It’s amazing that in the richest country on earth, more than one in five children still have to face the unbearably harsh reality every day – what will they eat next, and where will they sleep tonight?”
Ever since we entered 2020, the internet has been full of paragraphs and hilarious stories about China getting out of poverty, as 2020 is the target year for China to align itself with the goal of building a moderately prosperous society and lifting the entire population out of poverty. But there are a lot of people who think they are still very poor and feel that the government is faking it, thus mocking and criticizing it.
But I want to ask these people, are they as “poor” as the one in five American children who are so poor that they don’t have their next meal or a place to sleep at night?
But even if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because they’ll soon tell you that they know a so-and-so, a relative in the countryside, and that life is not human.
For this kind of talk, see the case fiction above.
China’s human rights report also notes that the Gini coefficient in the U.S. remains high – an objective fact – yet some in the comments section immediately start mocking it, “as if China’s Gini coefficient is not high.
First of all, to answer the question of whose Gini coefficient is high, I checked the data published by the World Bank, China 38.6, the United States 41.5 (because the cut-off time is different, and there is some discrepancy with the figures in the human rights report)
–Surprisingly, China is still a bit lower, so I’m sorry for my friends who are worried about the country.
But what if, after more than two years, our latest coefficient is equal to or even exceeds that of the United States?
The point is that China is still a developing country, while the United States has been developed for many years, and is at the top of the developed world, and every day boasts of its equality, its justice!
But it’s Gini coefficient is actually so high, doesn’t that in itself poke holes in its own lies?
A casual comparison of other developed countries, the UK, Germany, Japan, are all far below the US.
Our country has never shied away from its own problems, and we are solving our own internal affairs.
But when the United States takes the moral high ground and criticizes other countries for poverty and inequality between rich and poor, it spreads the default message that it is doing far better than the countries it is criticizing.
But what about the reality? That’s not the case at all.
But the truth seems to have no bearing on the discourse, not only internationally, but even in China’s internal public opinion environment.
When the United States criticizes China, no matter how unreliable the source of information or how appalling the story, most people immediately accept it and start reflecting on the “bad nature of the Chinese”.
When our report objectively and truthfully points out the problems in the United States, the first reaction of some of our Chinese compatriots is to look for loopholes, turn around and mock China, cite the story of “I have a friend who is having a very miserable time”, scoff at the results of the big data cited by the government agencies in a serious search, and think they have seen through the truth.
It is not alarmist to say that although our economic strength has increased, we are far more vulnerable and passive in the public opinion arena than most of our compatriots can imagine.
When we have bad news, criticism and accusations are inevitable; when we have no news, the foreign media can create bad news for us; when we have good news, we are caught in a loophole and mocked in reverse.
This is the case at home, not to mention the international level, the next Nazi Germany well.
Public opinion positions, we do not occupy, the enemy will occupy.
Posted on 2020-03-15
Self-knowledge and not public knowledge2020-03-24
I hope that the United States of America does not ‘strongly’ against the virus, which will lead to the loss of free genes [tearful laugh]
This comment was deleted for violating community norms, details >>
Zhihu User Zhihu User (Author) in reply to Coconut 2020-03-15
Another perfect example
Zhihu user Zhihu user replied to Zhihu user (Author)2020-03-23
Before I had a chance to read it, the example was harmonized [daze]
Logged off” 2020-05-31
I a poor village people in Gansu, after reading Zhihu and B station certain anchor, suddenly found that our village is unbelievable to achieve three passages, solve the food and clothing, this is not at all the poor village in their mouth.
I think it is currently more beneficial for us to maintain a rational development, too much anti-American sentiment will hinder development, if the U.S. side dares to damage our core interests, but also can instantly mobilize. Our current main shortcoming is international public opinion, both in Western countries, or non-Western, are relatively weak, I hope the future can have a global influence on the power of the media, our own voice.
China’s own use of strong network of raw power trapped in the country, and then smack of public opinion discourse is not enough? The people who have fought alone on the Twitter oil tube know how desperate
Why do not believe the domestic media? The big media top press, small media is even a * news, how can people believe?
Ten Steps to Murder
Ten Steps to Murder 2020-04-01
Is not the benefit of freedom of speech. China’s current development always has to give up something in exchange for
Three people 02-23
I myself do not believe, not to mention the crooked nuts
Two words deserve it!
Originally we are self-imposed, and do not care about the international discourse, then how to have an international discourse? The Chinese can’t see and don’t care to refute the fake news.
Public opinion on the internal 100 points, external 0 points, too many falsehoods will always be unable to pocket
crazy ah crazy
mad ah mad 2020-07-10
We Gini coefficient 0.6 ah
The lie repeated a thousand times is the truth, when the world’s population believe that the crusade against the “dragon” is a righteous act, it is too late to explain that they are not the dragon. The harm is no less than the bgsg, but only in the long run will it appear
The fact is that ah, and not to mention the international public opinion, daily life can be seen for the foreign head of the situation, advertising as long as you want to highlight the high-end science to find a few foreigners to support the scene, Wuhan epidemic that burst of news to local foreigners special treatment is no one, the recent Shenzhen ban on dog and cat meat regulations are also “reference to the practices of developed countries in Europe and the United States “, I sincerely hope that cultural confidence system confidence is not just a slogan only
Call for the unblocking of those opinion positions, or they simply can not go to war.
The key is that some piggybackers keep pulling down our credibility.
The key is that some piggybackers keep pulling down our credibility all the time. For example, Ruixing, a company that listed on an overseas exchange and then falsified its finances.
Human rights reports to themselves as judges can say? Can you correct your own college entrance examination papers?
Zhihu user Zhihu user 2020-04-09
This is also related to economic strength, technology, etc., bad food and clothing, the people do not have the energy to take into account. In recent years, through the film, literature, television cultural programs, Confucius schools, the Belt and Road, the increase in international students, all aspects have just begun, the rest need to have been awakened to the people’s collective efforts, add bricks and mortar, expand propaganda, take and consolidate domestic positions, as a base to extend Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, East Asia, the West, and follow the trend.
Zhihu user Zhihu user 03-18
Most of our media monitoring function is basically equal to no, you know the reason, some foreign media is really bad, each has its own problems
The initiative to give up the position of public opinion, who can blame?
Only on the other end of the 404 can I know how foreign netizens evaluate China, with gloomy news headlines, anti-intellectual and even extremely discriminatory comments underneath, especially since this epidemic has reinforced my perception of such discrimination.
Three people replied to miller Mike02-23
Who can blame them, the bridge is cut by themselves
Yantai Jishu Decoration Design
Yantai Jishu Decoration Design 2020-11-28
The Chinese are brought up to be obedient and not to be a bird of prey, which is better than the foreign ones who are good at debating.
Chinese text of translation discussion quoted above.
很简单，用have a say in sth的表达方式。say当名词时可以表示“发言权”，“话语权”的意思。
例如Quora上的一个问题：“Do actors have a say in character development in a television show?”
类似的，你也可以用have a voice in sth的表达方式。编辑于 2017-09-05赞同 173 条评论分享收藏喜欢继续浏览内容
Foucault further stated that power is always present and can both produce and constrain the truth. Discourse according to Foucault (1977, 1980, 2003) is related to power as it operates by rules of exclusion. Discourse therefore is controlled by objects, what can be spoken of; ritual, where and how one may speak; and the privileged, who may speak.
不过虽然福柯（Foucault）提出的discourse概念挺广，我觉得这个翻译还是比较适用于很书面的语言吧……毕竟如果对方不了解福柯，可能也比较难领会到这个意思，也就不一定是个适合的翻译了。编辑于 2017-06-22赞同 22添加评论分享收藏喜欢继续浏览内容
Goosey Zhang译者，目标死前成为翻译大佬5 人赞同了该回答
似乎目前还没有广为接受的译法，不过wiki上将这个词译为”power of speech”，发言权，话语权，感觉比较合适，是一个比较简洁、达意的译法。
正好也在查这个词，遂答。编辑于 2018-05-19赞同 5添加评论分享收藏喜欢继续浏览内容
Dan Li2 人赞同了该回答
刚刚看到了”leading voices”，感觉挺适合表达这个“话语权”的意思。（voice释义: the right to express an opinion.）
例句：If we had gone back to the eighth century, the leading philosophical voices in society would have been Buddhist. （意思是唐朝的时候，佛教在当时的中国思想界具有话语权。）编辑于 2017-10-26
这些“众人皆醉我独醒”的高手判断真假的标准往往很简单，中国人说的=假，外国人说的=真，中国人反对=被洗脑无可救药，外国人反驳 = 自由独立正义真理。
- 猫头鹰2020-03-16首先就是缺乏自信。其次就是韬光养晦带来的后果：中国在很长时间都不敢提抗美援朝，对一些大V否定抗美援朝，否定TG抗日也是默不作声。109回复踩 举报
- 人生如若初见回复猫头鹰2020-03-28国人对洋人对于自己的评价太过于敏感了，说白了就是对自己不自信。你见过美国人会在乎我们怎么说他们吗？鸟都不鸟你！81回复踩 举报
- 爱岛生活回复人生如若初见2020-03-30我也不关心越南，东南亚，中东，南亚，南美，非洲怎么评价我们27回复踩 举报
- Vitdon2020-03-23非常感谢作者的这篇文章！当然，每篇文章也都不能十全十美，但是，我感受到的作者欲图传达的消息和精神，与我个人产生了很强的共鸣。同时，希望作者能够保持着客观、思辨，最重要的是带着大局意识和发展眼光，给其他人传达我们现在非常需要，也是少数人了解到的信号。再次握拳！希望作者此文能够被广泛阅读。53回复踩 举报
- hahaha2020-03-29宣传自己都不相信的思想，还想搞舆论战？37回复踩 举报
- 知乎用户 (作者) 回复hahaha2020-03-31典型的推己及人，你不相信不代表别人不相信，其实你这样讲话，也可以见得你根本无所谓相不相信，因为你根本不了解什么思想20回复踩 举报
- charlary2020-03-29靠墙才能维持的国内舆论还想拿到国际去，你真是想多了。28回复踩 举报
- 知乎用户 (作者) 回复charlary2020-03-31说这种话，表明你对所谓国际舆论根本一无所知16回复踩 举报
- 华硕1145回复charlary2020-04-05没有墙，估计国内网络公司很多都要倒闭，b站优酷会被外国视频网站取代，网络行业就业岗位更少了，油管的推送算法是外国掌控的，到时候对中国有利的视频，根本就不推送16回复踩 举报
- 鹿宝宝爱吃鱼2020-04-03中国问题就是，国际上不发声，国内又限制大家发言。21回复踩 举报
- baibai6250回复鹿宝宝爱吃鱼2020-08-28掩耳盗铃？3回复踩 举报
- njfdx回复鹿宝宝爱吃鱼2020-10-12我们现在在国际上发声，而且我们那这扩音喇叭喊，西方媒体给人戴上强力耳塞而已。赞回复踩 举报
- 刘洋兵2020-04-05你查阅的数据本身就很扯，中国基尼系数0.63你说美国儿童贫困问题比中国严重?还有就是你必须认清一个现实中国没有媒体。19回复踩 举报
- njfdx回复刘洋兵2020-10-12世界银行2018中国基尼系数38.6赞回复踩 举报
- 一言倾天下回复刘洋兵2020-12-21为什么没有，央视不算吗，还有那么多的媒体平台，怎么能说中国没有媒体？赞回复踩 举报
- 飞骐2020-03-28我只能说，会出下一个纳粹德国的一定是西方国家，不可能是中国，中国要是施行欧美那一套自由民主的制度，反倒是有可能也会变成纳粹德国那样的国家，就像tw、hk这样的16回复踩 举报
- 竹千代回复飞骐2020-12-29没有这样的知识储备就不要谈论那么大的事好么1回复踩 举报
- 知乎用户2020-04-02对内都要靠删帖带节奏封号，外面谁理你？15回复踩 举报
- Leonid Moore2020-03-29我们的媒体对内歪屁股搞事一流，一来就是体制问题，自由问题。对外哑口无言，一塌糊涂。这次疫情看得自己叫个气。13回复踩 举报
- 91杨先生2020-04-02主要是中国人上不了那些不存在的网站，没法发起保卫战。11回复踩 举报
- 原子安妮回复91杨先生2020-04-14上了又能怎么样？中国驻斯里兰卡大使馆的推特账号都被“技术性封号”了呢，你信吗？[撇嘴][撇嘴][撇嘴]且不说别的，国内很多平台都是屁股歪的，保不齐我这号哪天又被封了，而原因又是一个莫须有的罪名[撇嘴][撇嘴][撇嘴]5回复踩 举报
- Lupus回复91杨先生2020-04-18现在翻墙过去的人比有些西方小国的总人口还多，然而那，推特脸书该想你还是一样封你6回复踩 举报
- 神秘电饭锅2020-03-27现在掌握话语权的都是那些河殇派的和他们的门徒。这些人蹦哒不了多久了。折腾折腾着，眼看着也就快死完了，代表人物大概是方方吧10回复踩 举报
- 要自知而不要公知2020-03-24妥妥抽了公知大V的脸啊[赞同]8回复踩 举报
- Fred2020-07-24美国最大的人权，其实就是言论自由而已。其他方面，远不如中国自由。而言论自由的原因，是因为美国掌控着全球的媒体和社交软件，Google，Facebook，Twitter，YouTube。他不需要担心过激的言论会挑起暴动，就算挑起暴动了，只要发动舆论，而且骚乱的背后一般没有金源，所以很快就平息下来了。但是中国呢？没办法做言论自由。因为你一旦言论自由，大量的西方人尤其是同说中文的台湾人，会利用西方话语权大肆的煽动中国暴动，背后又有美国金源支持，会导致中国的暴动根本停不下来，最终颠覆掉中国的政府。让中国再次回到西方的所谓民主，也就是民国初期那种所谓民主，即不同的西方国家分别支持不同的政党，让中国四分五裂的这种情况。这也是为什么西方拼命的打压中国，打击中国企业，但是却偏偏白送你民主，不要还骂你。按照美国的行为来看，民主明显就是会严重削弱中国国力，否则他傻吗天天逼你民主自由，难道是为了让中国变强？傻子都知道答案刚好相反啊7回复踩 举报
- Akebayete回复Fred03-11明白人赞回复踩 举报
- 蚊子华丽2020-04-04你在抖音上搜搜前面大v争先恐后转发的武汉市委书记延报漏报的信息去哪儿了，有时候三观真毁了，咱不能算知识渊博，可是读过书上过学，有啥错被当成傻子哑巴哄呢7回复踩 举报
- 一言倾天下回复蚊子华丽2020-12-21我去看了，那些信息还在1回复踩 举报
- 基石2020-03-28让敌人认可，不是天方夜谭吗？有什么好纠结的！通过这场疫情，让民众认清了美国的本质和水平，也算意外收获！在中国人已经证明正确的防疫措施，西方死不承认，就是意识形态啊！7回复踩 举报
- 老朽喜逗妇乳2020-03-28文化自信力！没错！7回复踩 举报
- 一春梦雨常飘瓦2020-03-27这么好的文章，说出了我的心声。6回复踩 举报
- 知乎用户2020-04-11造谣一张嘴，辟谣跑断腿啊，更何况人家根本就不是想和你讲道理，人家就是想抹黑你，诋毁你，丑化你，进而分裂你，打垮你，消灭你。中国这么好，这么强大，所以在西方国家眼里，呼吸都是原罪，存在就是错误。 这是意识形态甚至民族之间的尖锐对立，还有很多人在帮敌人摇旗呐喊，真的细思恐极。5回复踩 举报
- tio-plato2020-04-09根本原因是苏联解体对中国在意识形态上的打击太大了 其实八十年代的审核还是比较宽松的 到九十年代就大幅收紧了5回复踩 举报
- alsaidlove2020-03-21国际舆论场指的究竟是什么？Reddit这种论坛就算国际舆论场的一个代表了吗？5回复踩 举报
- 知乎用户 (作者) 回复alsaidlove2020-03-26没有任何平台能够完全代表所谓“民意”，但是它可以提供一个参考。比方说现在知乎上一个答案如果得到几万个赞同，同时被算法顶到了第一位，那这个答案难道不能够代表很大一部分人的看法吗？30回复踩 举报
- 温柔青涩女勋爵回复知乎用户 (作者)2020-04-03主流知乎er特征：多为男性，很情绪化，社区已经产生一些让人反感的政治正确，比如说不分场合的女拳警告等，观点大于干货。好在这些人多数反殇反帝也反996，主流除却建制派就是口嗨左壬，所以入关学流行不是没有原因的。
- acidrain9112020-04-03我觉得目前我们维持理性的发展更为有利，过多的反美情绪会阻碍发展，如果美方敢损害我们核心利益，也能瞬间动员起来。我们目前主要的短板在于国际舆论，无论是在西方国家，还是非西方，都比较弱势，希望未来能有全球影响力的媒体力量，我们自己的声音。4回复踩 举报
- 若水2020-04-29中国自己用强把网络生力军生生困在了国内，然后嫌舆论话语权不够？？在推特油管上孤军奋战过的人都知道有多绝望3回复踩 举报
- randomL2020-04-14为什么不相信国内媒体？大媒体上头压着，小媒体竟是一下*******新闻，让人怎么相信？3回复踩 举报
- 十步杀人2020-04-01是不是言论自由所带来的好处。中国现在的发展总是要舍弃一些东西换来的3回复踩 举报
- 三人禾02-23我自己都不相信，别说歪果仁了2回复踩 举报
- 竹千代2020-12-29两个字活该！2回复踩 举报
- 雀巢咖啡2020-09-06本来我们就是自我封闭，并不在乎国际话语权，那又何来有国际话语权？看外面网站，一大堆黑中国的假消息，中国人既看不见也无所谓去反驳2回复踩 举报
- 陈天驰2020-08-29舆论对内100分，对外0分，假话说太多总会兜不住2回复踩 举报
- 疯啊疯2020-07-10我们基尼系数0.6啊2回复踩 举报
- 大萝卜2020-07-05谎言重复一千遍就是真理，当世界民众都相信讨伐”巨龙”是正义之举时，它再去解释自己不是巨龙已为时已晚。其危害觉不亚于bgsg，但长期才会显现2回复踩 举报
- Urita2020-04-19唉，事实就是这样啊，而且都别说国际舆论了，日常生活都能看到为洋首是瞻的情况，广告上只要想凸显高端科学就找几个洋人撑场子，武汉疫情那阵给本地外国人的特殊待遇的新闻也是没谁了，最近深圳的那个禁食猫狗肉的条例也是“参考欧美发达国家做法”，真心希望文化自信制度自信不仅仅是一个口号而已2回复踩 举报
- 大魔头-诺铁2020-04-14呼吁解除对那些舆论阵地的屏蔽，要不然根本上不了战场。2回复踩 举报
- 知乎用户2020-04-14关键是有些猪队友一直一直地拉低我们的信誉度。比如瑞幸这种在境外交易所上市后又财务造假的企业。2回复踩 举报
- mayzf2020-04-11人权报告自己给自己当裁判能说的清吗？你能批改自己的高考试卷吗？2回复踩 举报
- 知乎用户2020-04-09这也和经济实力，技术等有关，吃不好穿不暖，百姓没有精力顾及。近几年，通过电影，文学，电视文化节目，孔子学校，一带一路，留学生增多，各方面才刚刚开始，剩下的需要已经觉醒的民众群策群力，添砖加瓦，扩大宣传，拿下和巩固国内阵地，以此为根据地延伸港澳台，东亚，西方的，顺势而为。2回复踩 举报
- 知乎用户03-18我们大部分媒体监督功能基本等于没有，原因你懂得，外国一些媒体也确实坏，各有各的问题1回复踩 举报
- 帝企鹅02-06主动放弃舆论阵地，能怪谁？1回复踩 举报
- miller Mike01-29只有在404的另一端才能知道国外网民是如何评价中国，阴阳怪气的新闻标题、底下反智甚至极端歧视主义的评论，尤其是这次疫情更是加强了我对这种歧视主义的认识。1回复踩 举报
- 三人禾回复miller Mike02-23那能怪得了谁，桥梁是自己割断的2回复踩 举报
- 烟台吉墅装饰设计2020-11-28中国人从小接受的教育就是要听话 别做出头鸟 这跟国外从小善于辩论的来说 谁更胜一筹
- 正在过冬的熊2020-05-25我不知道你为什么一直在这里说中国国内舆论把控不过关。这件事大家有目共睹，都知道是怎么回事。站在一个稍微有些头脑的人的角度，都知道偏信不如不信。国内的媒体是怎么的大家都知道。当一个东西只有好的报出来，没有差的的时候。它的可信度自然低。这个时候收集正反双方不同的话语，辅佐自己可以找到的证据，得出来的结果才是我们想要的信息。你这一竿子打死所以人，严重怀疑你是营销号1回复踩 举报
- Bbake2020-05-04当我们谈到人权的时候后，就不要谈论战争了，因为战争就是去消灭人权，不是我的价值观里有人权我就不能发动战争了，这是不对的，有时候可能只有利益，但我还是信仰人权的。当我们谈论自由的时候，就不要谈论制度的不同了，因为有些制度本身就是限制自由的，只是自由的范围大小不同，当一个制度的自由范围更大，另一种制度自由范围更小的时候，那更小的就相对区域没有自由，我们就说你没有自由。关于人权与自由双标，没有统一的价值观怎么统一标准呢？双标是肯定会出现的，我们的目的是输出价值观和制度。统一标准。1回复踩 举报
- chie42020-04-19因为有墙…1回复踩 举报
- 兔光光2020-04-14美国借着经济军事的领先优势，在全球拼命宣传利己主义价值观，同时不忘把自己的国家描绘成地球人最佳去处，这样可以撬动各国精英，为他的国家做贡献，尤其是学术与科研领域。在这种舆论造势下，只要有人过得不好了，第一想到的出路往往就美国这个最“先进”的国，美国则可以慢慢挑选自己需要的人，顺便提出一些条件。而被挑中的无外乎两种人，一种可以用来BUFF自己，一种可以用来DEBUFF对手。大部分被洗了脑，向往着美国的人，并没有BUFF美国政府的能力，但是又着了他们的道，于是乎，拼命练习比较容易的DEBUFF自己国家的能力，想靠这个走通那条道，这部分人于是开始对自己人洗脑，为自己累积声望资本。中国在改革开放后，对于这部分人的面目没有看清，到了现在，泛滥成了一种很蠢的思，确实不好处理。但是，好在中国已经开始强大，自信的国人也多了起来，相信政府再聪明点，别犯二，培养好国民对自己的信心。两三代人之后，这情况会好很多。1回复踩 举报
- 东来东往东2020-04-14主要是世界上除西欧和美国之外的大部分国家民族都失掉自信力了，认为欧美发达国家所有东西(包括文化，制度，社会)都是最好的，最选进的。积贫积弱的亚非拉知识分子普遍认为只有学习西方才能变得像他们那样发达，做不到他们那样，跑到他们那里生活也是好的。这种观念甚至成了迷信，哪怕他们的弊病也会为他们辩护，中国做的好又么认为中国是抄的要么认为是假的，这种迷信还普通存在于欧美人头脑里，他们现在特别像康乾盛世时的中国人。刚开始中国疫情严重时他们认为中国医疗落后人素质差才导致3%的高死亡率。但一些欧美发达国家死亡率超过5%,10%时，又说中国统计不全面数字是假的，有自身疾病的感染的没算啥的。不可能。。1回复踩 举报
- MichealXueliu2020-04-12最好能开放点小报，专门怼美国，怼欧洲，言辞激烈点，必要的造点小谣，引起不来欧美的注意就当一个警示作用，让民众知道欧美舆论的险恶。引起注意外交部门就装傻，说不知道，并且捍卫公民言论自由权（手动狗头）1回复踩 举报
- 「已注销」回复MichealXueliu2020-05-31自由的造谣还是算了吧，现在自媒体风评为什么这么差，全都是标题党，为了流量各种歪曲和谣言，新闻哪怕不报，还是真实点好。1回复踩 举报
- 让我改名我就改名2020-04-09我觉得外媒是怼一切，美媒是怼欧洲，怼中国，怼自己。德媒是怼美国，怼中国，怼自己，怼法国，怼英国。1回复踩 举报
- 一人一口酥2020-04-09等于0太夸张了。中国五常国家等于0，那其它很多国家就是负的了。1回复踩 举报
- Red9642020-03-28所以我们要怎么做才能掌控国际舆论呢？1回复踩 举报
- 李安迪回复Red9642020-05-17光国力强大是不够的，关键是价值观道德观以及对外公关2回复踩 举报
- 凌晨身影回复李安迪02-03希望中国强大了能夺回一些话语权吧，如果不行也没太大关系了，30年的中国都没被颜色革命，现在更加不会了，苏联自己的人心被渗透解体了还不知道，不可同天朝相比较。1回复踩 举报
- 黎大仙2020-03-28五常之一=0？在开玩笑呢1回复踩 举报
- PowerPC970回复黎大仙2020-04-04五常是政治地位，媒体舆论地位是两回事，苏联当年也是五常，超级大国，丝毫不影响舆论地位低下，以至于都被卖了解体了老百姓还在给西方数钱呢23回复踩 举报
- l某人回复黎大仙2020-07-05舆论我们现在很夸张，外分的1回复踩 举报
- 夜静天明03-21这些人根本就没几个能看清问题的，还以为开墙就能掌握舆论?战后这个世界体系就是发达资本主义国家主导的，主要舆论也被西方牢牢掌控着。赞回复踩 举报
- 什么鬼01-29玩b站的外国人还是太少了233赞回复踩 举报
- 知乎用户2020-12-13我信啊，怎么不信赞回复踩 举报
- 阿杜海鲜2020-07-14民生赞回复踩 举报
- 真心英雄2020-07-02美国对他国的人权报告是对对象国人权状况作出评估，并以此作为出台相应政策的依据，这就当然不包括美国对自身人权状况的评估。作者对美国和我国是如何出台人权报告的作了对比介绍，但回答不了我国在国际上为什么话语权弱这个问题，内容和标题不搭。话语权一方面取决于实力，另一方面取决于你说的人家信不信你，我们的不干涉他国内政、一带一路倡议、人类命运共同体等外交政策理念应该是可以的。我们国家实力有了长足的进步，但应该清醒地认识到与世界强国相比还有相当的差距，当然保家是没有问题的，但千万不能莫名其妙地自嗨！那些谁谁谁吓怕了、崩溃了，毫无意义，就是敌人一天天烂下去，如果自己不能一天天好起来，又有什么用呢？赞回复踩 举报
- 东东锵2020-06-30舆论阵地充斥着大量二鬼子，这仗太难打，先把这些二鬼子弄死才是正事，比如多扔几个手榴弹，看看能不能炸出来些赞回复踩 举报
- 一线生2020-05-17入关解决一切赞回复踩 举报
- 大风起兮2020-05-01篇幅和写作技巧都杠杠的！一个理性、冷静、会思考的人看一个“来路不明”的报告，势必抱有质疑的态度，这是正常合理的，但为什么要“应该”对其“抱有极大的批判预警态度”？是你教独立思考的人要这样的吗？[捂脸]赞回复踩 举报
- C’estIavie2020-04-30理解你倒数第二句是调侃赞回复踩 举报
- charlary回复闲闲美戴子2020-05-17只感染亚洲人最早出处应该是某些极端毛左对SARS的造谣吧。1回复踩 举报
- 闲闲美戴子回复charlary2020-05-19西方也有人造谣，自己网上查1回复踩 举报
- 王小吞2020-04-20可以参照君子国和宋襄公的例子，咱们古人的智慧早就把道理给说透了，但是咱们作为后人却往往听一半扔一半，把好好的书念歪了赞回复踩 举报
- 知乎用户2020-04-17就算人家BB这么多废话，除了外国人不敢来中国还有什么影响吗？对于大多数中国人来说，那些外国人不来反而是好事，感谢外国媒体赞回复踩 举报
- 梦醒时分2020-04-16韬光养晦，有所作为是有代价的，相信以后国家会注意这些的赞回复踩 举报
- 田伟2020-04-14用真理说话了只有赞回复踩 举报
- 周鹏2020-04-14你这算批评政府吗？赞回复踩 举报
- 蚊子华丽2020-04-04我觉得对这些感兴趣的大多都是受过高等教育的，真真假假自己定夺就行了赞回复踩 举报
- 酸奶酪2020-03-30我觉得回答的非常贴切了，结合国内国外的社交平台和新闻媒体实际现状，我觉得中国必须尽快建立有效的舆论宣传机制赞回复踩 举报
- brian1055190471回复酸奶酪2020-04-03上twitter ？？赞回复踩 举报
- 雀巢咖啡回复brian10551904712020-09-06youtube上也是一大堆，看不见心不烦赞回复踩 举报
- 走自己的路2020-03-28帝国主义亡我之心不死，看看等中国GDP超过老美或者有他1.5倍时会发生什么赞回复踩 举报
- Chaos回复走自己的路2020-04-02当然是诽谤中国数据作假了啊，还能有什么6回复踩 举报
- 要自知而不要公知2020-03-24希望美利坚不要‘强力’对抗病毒，那样会导致自由基因都丧失了[飙泪笑]赞回复踩 举报