作者：陀先润
编辑：李聪玲 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：程铭

张雪峰在课堂上说“枪声一响，我立刻捐五千万；别说五千万，一个亿都该捐”。掌声密集，热搜滚烫。表面看是热血与担当，往里看是一个危险的范式：把复杂的公共议题，用一句“捐钱”外包给情绪，用一阵掌声替代推理。捐款当然不是原罪，问题在于——捐给谁、为了什么、换来什么。这三问若避而不答，数字越大，遮蔽越厚。

“打台湾”为何需要一个职业讲师来做军心动员？他当然可以表达立场，但当地缘政治被包装成课堂鸡血，当战争被讲成励志故事，课堂的灯就成了舞台的光。最容易被点燃的，是没有认知的年轻人；最先被卷入的，却是他们自己。战争的第一顺位出场者，从来不是既得利益者的子嗣，而是普通家庭的孩子。真正有资源的那一群，读的是封闭体系的学校，走的是民众不可见的管道；他们的安全边界往往早已被家族与制度加固。热血是共享的，风险不是。

“知其然，不知其所以然”，是这类舆论场的共同病灶。看了几段视频，背几句口号，就以为掌握了“历史必然”。可真要落到纸面，你问他三件事：第一，谁来下决心？第二，谁上战场？第三，账单谁来结？往往没有答案。更糟的是，当有人试图追问捐款去向、分配与监督机制时，立刻会被贴上“不爱国”的标签。把道德当锤子，问题自然就是钉子；当质疑被定义为不合群，理性就被挤出场外。

“捐五千万”的叙事为什么动人？因为它把复杂变简单，把个人变英雄。你不需要理解金融制裁如何传导到就业与汇率，不需要知道海空联动如何拉长补给链，更不需要计算伤残抚恤、遗属保障、难民安置会吞掉多少财政空间。你只要热血，你只要鼓掌，你只要在朋友圈转发“你看他要捐了”。情绪得到释放，现实无人买单。可现实是：每一枚子弹都有价格，每一趟输送都有成本，每一笔抚恤金后面，都是一个家庭的破裂。把战争当作“励志场景”的人，往往从没计算过“战后生活”。

捐款本该是公共理性的延伸：源头清楚、流向透明、可被审计。可在“爱国即正义”的叙事里，捐款很容易滑向“道德门票”。你不捐，你没良心；你追问，你别有用心。于是最该被问的几个细节，总是被“别问那么多”搪塞过去。钱到底是援助了前线，还是进了宣传预算？到了牺牲者家庭，还是落在礼仪工程？有没有独立的第三方做全链条核验？有没有公开的年度报告与负责人？如果这些都没有，那捐得越多，问责越少，热血就越容易被滥用。

再说“有思想”。很多人以为“敢说狠话”就是有思想，“立场响亮”就是有深度。其实，思想的最低标准是愿意对自己的立场开刀：我凭什么这样想？我错了怎么办？我是否在逃避成本？如果连“可证伪”的勇气都没有，所谓“思想”只是口号的回声而已。真正的独立，不是换一套更凶猛的词，而是承认复杂、计算代价、尊重证据。

这并不意味着反对捐款，恰恰相反。捐可以捐，但要把“程序正义”当成捐款的一部分。捐到哪家机构、谁是法人、年度财报在哪里、资金用途如何拆分、救助对象如何核验、失败案例如何纠偏，这些都是捐款的“隐形合同条款”。如果没有条款，就不要谈“长期主义”；如果不敢签名，就不要谈“责任”。热血可以是真诚的，但公共事务不能靠真诚交易，它必须靠制度。同样也不意味着否定统一的目标。你可以赞成，也可以反对；但无论立场，你都应对“成本—收益—分配”给出可落地的解释。用一句“历史大势”封口，等于承认自己没有答案。真正的政治成熟，恰恰体现在不逃避“谁牺牲、牺牲到什么程度、补偿从哪来、持续多久”。把这些写进白纸黑字，才配谈战略与大义。

在一个宣传偏好的语境里，最稀缺的不是激情，而是把激情关在笼子里。课堂不该成为情绪动员站，公众人物不该用宏大词汇偷换具体责任。当你用“捐五千万”拉满人设，你也该准备好被问“去向、监督、责任人”的每一个细节；当你号召年轻人拥抱热血，你更该告诉他们如何面对伤残、失业、债务与创伤。否则，这不是担当，是炒作。

写到这里，我只要求一件很小的事：把三句冷冰冰的问题贴在每个“热血演讲”的门口——为什么、为谁、换来什么。为什么要这样做？为谁的利益？换来什么结果？任何一个问题含糊其词，都不该有下一步。若能回答，就把答案写成制度条款，接受持续的核验；若不能回答，就把麦克风放下，把掌声还给沉默。

我们当然需要热爱，但比热爱更需要清醒；我们也需要慷慨，但比慷慨更需要规则。捐款是良善，问责是底线；战鼓可以响，但账必须算。愿每一次情绪的涌动，最后都能变成一张透明的报表；愿每一次口号的升起，背后都有可被追问的责任书。在那之前，请把热血留给真正的危急，把理性留给每一次“捐”的决定。

It’s okay to donate emotions, but the price must be calculated.

Abstract: Zhang Xuefeng’s “donation of 50 million” has attracted heated discussion, but enthusiasm cannot replace reason. Donations must be clearly directed and supervised, and the cost of war needs to be calculated openly. Passion should be subject to institutional constraints, and accountability is the bottom line.

Author: Duo Xianrun
Editor: Li Congling Responsible Editor: Luo Zhifei Translator: Cheng Ming

Zhang Xuefeng said in class, “As soon as the gunshot sounds, I will immediately donate 50 million; not to mention 50 million, 100 million should be donated.” The applause is dense, and the hot search is hot. On the surface, it is passionate and responsible, but on the inside, it is a dangerous paradigm: outsourcing complex public issues with a sentence of “donation” to emotions and replacing reasoning with a burst of applause. Of course, donation is not an original sin. The question is – to whom to donate, for what, and in exchange for what. If you avoid these three questions, the larger the number, the thicker the cover.

Why does “hitting Taiwan” need a professional lecturer to mobilize the military? Of course, he can express his position, but local politics is packaged as chicken blood in the classroom. When the war is told as an inspirational story, the light in the classroom becomes the light of the stage. The most easily ignited are young people without cognition; the first to be involved is themselves. The first-ranked person in the war is never the son of the vested interests, but the children of ordinary families. The group with real resources goes to closed-system schools and walks through invisible channels to the public; their security boundaries have often been strengthened by the family and the system. Blood is shared, but the risk is not.

“Knowing what it is, not knowing why” is the common disease of this kind of public opinion field. After watching a few videos and memorizing a few slogans, I thought that I had mastered “history is inevitable”. But if it’s really on paper, you ask him three things: First, who will make up his mind? Second, who will go to the battlefield? Third, who will settle the bill? There is often no answer. What’s worse, when someone tries to ask about the distribution and supervision mechanism of donations, they will immediately be labeled as “unpatriotic”. If morality is regarded as a hammer, the problem is naturally a nail; when questioning is defined as incompatibility, reason is squeezed out of the field.

Why is the narrative of “donating 50 million” so touching? Because it turns complexity into simplicity and individuals into heroes. You don’t need to understand how financial sanctions are transmitted to employment and exchange rates, you don’t need to know how sea-air linkage lengthens the supply chain, and you don’t need to calculate how much financial space will be swallowed up by disability pensions, survivors’ security and refugee resettlement. You just need to be passionate, you just need to applaud, you just need to forward “You see he is going to donate” in Moments. Emotions are released, and no one pays for it in reality. But the reality is that every bullet has a price, every transportation has a cost, and every pension is followed by the breakdown of a family. People who regard war as an “inspirational scene” often never calculate “post-war life”.

Donations should be an extension of public rationality: the source is clear, the flow is transparent, and it can be audited. But in the narrative of “patriotism is justice”, donations are easy to slip into “moral tickets”. If you don’t donate, you have no conscience; if you ask, you have ulterior motives. Therefore, the details that should be asked the most are always evaded by “Don’t ask so much”. Did the money aid the front line or into the publicity budget? When you arrive at the victim’s family, or do you fall into the etiquette project? Is there an independent third party to do the whole chain verification? Is there a public annual report and person in charge? If you don’t have these, the more donations you make, the less accountability you have, and the easier it is for your blood to be abused.

Then say “thinking”. Many people think that “dare to speak harshly” is thoughtful, and “resounding position” is profound. In fact, the minimum standard of thought is to be willing to open up one’s own position: why do I think so? What if I’m wrong? Am I avoiding the cost? If you don’t even have the courage to “falsify”, the so-called “thought” is just an echo of the slogan. True independence is not to change a set of more fierce words, but to acknowledge complexity, calculate the price, and respect the evidence.

This does not mean opposing donations, on the contrary. Donation can be donated, but “procedural justice” should be regarded as part of the donation. To which institution to donate, who is the legal person, where is the annual financial report, how to split the use of funds, how to verify the beneficiaries, and how to correct the failure cases, these are the “invisible contract terms” of donations. If there is no clause, don’t talk about “long-termism”; if you dare not sign, don’t talk about “responsibility”. Blood can be sincere, but public affairs cannot rely on sincere transactions, it must rely on the system. It also does not mean denying the goal of unification. You can agree or disagree; but regardless of your position, you should give a practical explanation of “cost-benefit-distribution”. To shut your mouth with a sentence of “the general trend of history” is equivalent to admitting that you have no answer. True political maturity is reflected in not avoiding “who sacrifices, to what extent, where the compensation comes from, and how long it lasts”. Only by writing these in black and white words can we talk about strategy and righteousness.

In a context of promoting preferences, the scarcest thing is not passion but putting passion in a cage. The classroom should not become an emotional mobilization station, and public figures should not use grand words to steal specific responsibilities. When you fill people with “donate 50 million”, you should also be prepared to be asked every detail of “going, supervision, responsible person”; when you call on young people to embrace the blood, you should tell them how to face disability, unemployment, debt and trauma. Otherwise, this is not responsibility, but hype.

At this point, I only ask for one small thing: put three cold questions on the door of each “hot-blooded speech” – why, for whom, and what. Why do you have to do this? For whose benefit? What’s the result? If any question is vague, there should be no next step. If you can answer, write the answer as a system clause and accept continuous verification; if you can’t answer, put down the microphone and return the applause to silence.

Of course, we need love, but we need to be sober more than love; we also need to be generous, but we need rules more than generosity. Donation is good, and accountability is the bottom line; war drums can be heard, but the account must be calculated. May every emotional surge eventually become a transparent report; may there be a letter of responsibility that can be questioned behind every slogan. Until then, please leave your enthusiasm for the real crisis, and leave your reason for every “donation” decision.