太陽花good, 行，真的很行~~~
講你們民粹，就能凹成民粹是中性名詞(再搭配國屍們教的一堆亂七八糟的資料)
用同樣的邏輯，幹，也是中性名詞。
當有人對著太陽花罵"幹"，是中性還是負面?
同理，對著太陽花罵民粹，太陽花還可以腦補這時候是中性名詞??
[黑特] 推薦書，談民粹主義(一)(二)
https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/HatePolitics/M.1395981319.A.622.html
https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/HatePolitics/M.1395983621.A.713.html
沒關係，垃圾之花不喜歡民粹兩個字，
現在有其他字眼，The antipolitics (people)-反政治(雜魚們)，歡迎垃圾之花服用~
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/the-governing-cancer-of-our-time.html
http://cn.nytimes.com/opinion/20160301/c01brooks/print/dual/
The Governing Cancer of Our Time
By DAVID BROOKS March 1, 2016
We live in a big, diverse society. There are essentially two ways to
maintain order and get things done in such a society — politics or some
form of dictatorship. Either through compromise or brute force. Our
founding fathers chose politics.
我們生活在一個多樣的大社會裡。在這樣的社會裡，大體上有兩種方式可以讓我們
維持秩序和事務正常運轉，一是政治，二是某種形式的獨裁。一種方式是進行妥協
，另一種是訴諸蠻力。我們的建國先賢選擇了政治。
Politics is an activity in which you recognize the simultaneous existence
of different groups, interests and opinions. You try to find some way to
balance or reconcile or compromise those interests, or at least a majority
of them. You follow a set of rules, enshrined in a constitution or in
custom, to help you reach these compromises in a way everybody considers
legitimate.
在政治活動里，你認識到不同組織、利益和觀念的存在。你試着尋找平衡、協調
這些利益的辦法，尋求妥協，或至少實現其中的大部分。你按照一套規則行事，
將它奉為憲法，或變成習慣，從而幫助你以一種所有人都認為合法的方式達成妥協。
The downside of politics is that people never really get everything they
want. It’s messy, limited and no issue is ever really settled. Politics
is a muddled activity in which people have to recognize restraints and
settle for less than they want. Disappointment is normal.
政治的不足之處在於，人們永遠無法想要什麼就的確得到什麼。它是混亂而有限的，
沒什麼問題能得到真正的解決。政治是一筆糊塗賬，人們不得不在其中認識到局限的
存在，然後退而求其次。失望是常態。
But that’s sort of the beauty of politics, too. It involves an endless
conversation in which we learn about other people and see things from their
vantage point and try to balance their needs against our own. Plus, it’s
better than the alternative: rule by some authoritarian tyrant who tries to
govern by clobbering everyone in his way.
不過，你也可以說，這正是政治的美妙之處。它把我們捲入一場無休無止的對話，
讓我們在這個過程中了解其他人，從有利於他們的視角看問題，然後試着在他們
和我們的利益之間尋找平衡點。更不用說，它要好過另一選項：讓某個獨裁的暴君
進行統治，方式是掃清一切對他有妨礙的人。
As Bernard Crick wrote in his book, “In Defence of Politics,”
“Politics is a way of ruling divided societies without undue violence.”
就像伯納德·克里克(Bernard Crick)在他的《為政治辯護》(In Defence of Politics)
一書中所寫的，「政治是一種不需要過度使用暴力而治理存在分歧的社會的辦法。」
Over the past generation we have seen the rise of a group of people who are
against politics. These groups — best exemplified by the Tea Party but not
exclusive to the right — want to elect people who have no political
experience. They want “outsiders.” They delegitimize compromise and
deal-making. They’re willing to trample the customs and rules that give
legitimacy to legislative decision-making if it helps them gain power.
在過去的二三十年里，我們看到有一群反對政治的人崛起。這些團體——最佳代表是
茶黨，但並非只有右翼存在——想選出沒有從政經驗的人，也就是他們口中的「外來者」
。他們消解了妥協並達成協議的合法性。如果有助於他們獲得權力，他們會不惜踐踏
賦予立法決策合法性的習慣和規則。
Ultimately, they don’t recognize other people. They suffer from a form of
political narcissism, in which they don’t accept the legitimacy of other
interests and opinions. They don’t recognize restraints. They want total
victories for themselves and their doctrine.
歸根結底，他們不認可其他人。他們受到一種政治上的孤芳自賞的毒害，這讓他們
不接受其他利益和觀念的合法性。他們不承認限制的存在。他們想讓自己和自己的
信條獲得全盤的勝利。
This antipolitics tendency has had a wretched effect on our democracy. It
has led to a series of overlapping downward spirals:
這種反政治的傾向，對我們的民主產生了一種極壞的影響。它導致了一系列不乏雷同
之處的螺旋下降：
The antipolitics people elect legislators who have no political skills or
experience. That incompetence leads to dysfunctional government, which leads
to more disgust with government, which leads to a demand for even more
outsiders.
這些反政治的人選擇沒有執政經驗或缺乏這方面技巧的人擔任議員。這樣的先天不足
會導致政府運轉失調，由此導致公眾對政府更加厭惡，進而使他們想要尋找更多的
外來者。
The antipolitics people don’t accept that politics is a limited activity.
They make soaring promises and raise ridiculous expectations. When those
expectations are not met, voters grow cynical and, disgusted, turn even
further in the direction of antipolitics.
這些反政治的人不承認政治是一種受限的活動。他們做出天花亂墜的承諾，製造不切
實際的期待。當這些期待無法兌現，選民就會變得滿腔憤恨，由此更加傾向於反政治
一方。
The antipolitics people refuse compromise and so block the legislative
process. The absence of accomplishment destroys public trust. The decline in
trust makes deal-making harder.
這些反政治的人拒絕妥協，由此阻礙立法進程。這方面成就的缺乏，會破壞公眾的信任
。而信任的下降，又會讓達成協議變得更加困難。
We’re now at a point where the Senate says it won’t even hold hearings on
a presidential Supreme Court nominee, in clear defiance of custom and the
Constitution. We’re now at a point in which politicians live in fear if
they try to compromise and legislate. We’re now at a point in which normal
political conversation has broken down. People feel unheard, which makes
them shout even louder, which further destroys conversation.
現在，我們處在一個奇特的階段：參議院表示它甚至不會就總統提名的最高法院大法官
人選舉行聽證會，儘管這顯然不符合常規，也不符合憲法的要求；政界人士如果試圖
達成妥協來制訂法律，就會陷入擔憂；正常的政治對話中斷；民眾感到無人傾聽自己
的想法，這讓他們想更大聲地喊叫，而這又會進一步破壞這種對話。
And in walks Donald Trump. People say that Trump is an unconventional
candidate and that he represents a break from politics as usual. That’s not
true. Trump is the culmination of the trends we have been seeing for the last
30 years: the desire for outsiders; the bashing style of rhetoric that makes
conversation impossible; the decline of coherent political parties; the
declining importance of policy; the tendency to fight cultural battles and
identity wars through political means.
於是，唐納德·川普(Donald Trump)這樣的人走上了前台。人們說，川普是一名不因
循守舊的候選人，說他代表一種與政治常規的分道揚鑣。這種說法不對。川普是我們
在過去30年里看到的多種趨勢累積的結果：讓外來者參政的慾望；口出惡言使對話難
以實現的虛誇言辭風格；政黨連貫性的降低；政策重要性的下降；以及通過政治手段
打文化戰和身份戰的傾向。
Trump represents the path the founders rejected. There is a hint of violence
undergirding his campaign. There is always a whiff, and sometimes more than
a whiff, of “I’d like to punch him in the face.”
川普代表的，正是建國先賢反對的那條路。他的選戰背後，有一些暴力因素在支撐。
總有一絲——有時候豈止是一絲——「我想一拳打到他臉上」的意味。
I printed out a Times list of the insults Trump has hurled on Twitter. The
list took up 33 pages. Trump’s style is bashing and pummeling. Everyone who
opposes or disagrees with him is an idiot, a moron or a loser. The implied
promise of his campaign is that he will come to Washington and bully his way
through.
我打印了《紐約時報》一份記錄川普在Twitter上辱罵各種對象的詞彙清單，足足
有33頁。川普的風格是破口大罵、窮追不捨。所有反對他，或與他意見不一的人，
都是傻瓜、笨蛋或者廢物。他的選戰暗含的承諾是，他會入主華盛頓，並殺出一條
血路來。
Trump’s supporters aren’t looking for a political process to address their
needs. They are looking for a superhero. As the political scientist Matthew
MacWilliams found, the one trait that best predicts whether you’re a Trump
supporter is how high you score on tests that measure authoritarianism.
川普的支持者尋求的，不是一種可以回應他們需求的政治過程。他們要的是一個超級
英雄。就像政治學者馬修·麥克威廉(Matthew MacWilliams)發現的那樣，能最好預測
你是否支持川普的特徵，是看你在衡量威權主義傾向的測試中得分有多高。
This isn’t just an American phenomenon. Politics is in retreat and
authoritarianism is on the rise worldwide. The answer to Trump is politics. It
’s acknowledging other people exist. It’s taking pleasure in that
difference and hammering out workable arrangements. As Harold Laski put it, “
We shall make the basis of our state consent to disagreement. Therein shall
we ensure its deepest harmony.”
這不是美國獨有的現象。政治協商的勢頭在減弱，威權主義則在全球範圍內呈上升趨勢
。應對川普這種問題的答案，是政治，是承認其他人的存在，是以發現這種差異並為
之做出可行的安排為樂。就像哈羅德·拉斯基(Harold Laski)所說的，「我們應該讓
接受分歧成為這個國家的基礎，這樣才能確保實現最根本的和諧。」
太陽花"學運"? suck.