Reading is kicked out, can the bookstore be gentle with children?
Background: Recently, in a Xinhua Bookstore in Hulunbeier, a parent was dismissed for reading a book in the store, and there was a dispute with the clerk. The clerk said, "The bookstore is a place to sell books, not to read books. If you don't buy books, you have to go out. "
Jinghua Times published Bai Tao's opinion: "If you don't buy books, you have to go out", and a word set off public opinion. Looking at the comments of netizens, I almost accused the bookstore of only knowing "money". Even, someone quoted Shuqing Chu, the director of Hang Cheng Library, as an example: "I have no right to refuse them to study in it, but you have the right to choose to leave." The emotions of netizens are understandable, and the attitude of the clerk is also very inappropriate. However, a bookstore is not a library after all, and its autonomy and profitability determine its right to choose how to operate. The real problem in this matter is not the bookstore snobbery, but the vacancy in the public library. Have you found that many bookstores have become "nurseries" on weekends and holidays, and bookstores often have to bear the cost of maintaining order and book damage. If the public library has sufficient resources, balanced distribution and convenient location, and can attract readers, who wants to spend a day in the bookstore or sit on the floor?
"China Youth Daily" published Shu's opinion: Whether refusing readers to read books for free is a good business strategy can certainly be discussed. But one thing, bookstores are really places to sell books, and libraries are places to read books. Rotten books can't be sold. Rent is a cost, so is water and electricity. Moreover, whether state-owned or private, including Xinhua Bookstore, has the right to decide its own business strategy. In addition, a competent bookstore clerk will not make arbitrary judgments about buying books and reading books, otherwise his boss and superiors will fire him sooner or later. Ask yourself, in fact, many people who visit physical bookstores rarely buy books in the store. If they want to buy books, they will also write down their titles and order them online. Some parents even send their children who have not taken their holidays to bookstores to kill time. Of course, this is the reader's right and freedom, but at least don't "take advantage" with such confidence, let alone teach children such confidence.
Xiao Jiang thinks: Kong Yiji thinks that "stealing books is not stealing", and he was pressured by others. He also thinks: "Can a scholar's business be stolen?" Kong Yiji thought in Lu Xun's works generally reflects the mentality of some literati. Since stealing books is nothing, what's the harm of reading for nothing? Perhaps, the above mentality can be classified into the category of gray rights. Accordingly, operators and bookstores also have their own rights. If the bookstore allows free reading, it is the magnanimity of the operator, and it is also a strategy to create a reading atmosphere and attract business. However, if people don't want to read it for nothing, or feel that the new book has been turned into an old book, it is reasonable to refuse. If the bookstore refuses to read for free, it is aimed at adults, and the parties at most leave angrily. The "explosive point" of this case is that the expulsion of the child has aroused the sympathy of adults. Young people, for the sake of the bookstore, can you be gentle with your children? Even if the child is not sensible and damages the book, it is obviously more appropriate to negotiate with the parents afterwards. There is also a feeling that the reading rate of ordinary people is low now, and it is actually a good thing if more people are interested in reading.
The attendance of "Armani teenagers" at CPPCC meetings should also be supervised.
Background: Liu Bo, a junior two student, became popular overnight because he took 13 years old as a non-voting representative to attend the CPPCC meeting in Shenzhen, and made suggestions such as "Don't let a paper decide the future". Soon, netizens found that the teenager was wearing a luxury brand "Armani" suit, and he also saw many daily photos of him wearing "Armani" on his Weibo. Doubts and suspicions were endless.
Qianjiang evening news expressed Gao Lu's point of view: It is not whether a boy of 13 should appear at the CPPCC meeting, but why he did. In what way is such a special honor added to a teenager's head? Through Armani suits, netizens actually launched the association of being rich or expensive. Superior family background is undoubtedly the best evidence. A teenager who often wears famous brands in and out of various places, his family background is naturally beyond the reach of ordinary families So, did his family background play any role in the process of entering the CPPCC meeting? To be sure, if the protagonist of the incident is a poor child, it will be another inspirational story in life. Being rich is not a problem, being expensive is not a problem, being elected is not a problem, and compliance is the real problem. If the rules are transparent, all problems are not problems. When the rules are opaque and the background is opaque, it will inevitably leave room for speculation.
The Beijing News published Chen Xiaoer's point of view: the focus of people's questioning is not that he is wearing Armani or his son, but that the CPPCC meeting, as an important way to participate in the discussion of state affairs, will be "controlled" in advance by the descendants of some powerful people; I'm worried that attending the CPPCC meeting from an early age is a rehearsal for the "second generation" to enter the political arena ... which will make fairness unbalanced. Because in the eyes of the public, an Armani is expensive. If you can afford such clothes, 80% will not come from ordinary people. Behind all the noise, it is not "hatred of the rich", but the public's anxiety about social justice. In any case, like the original "five-bar boy", "Armani boy" itself is innocent. They are minors and should not have become the focus of public opinion. Although most of them become the focus by accident, those who bring them into the spotlight should also reflect.
Xiao Jiang casually thought: "Don't let a piece of paper decide the future" is right. And a boy of 13 years old, whose T-shirt, sweater, leisure suit and shoes are all "Armani", constantly basks in the Weibo, which is a metaphor for "what determines the future". To put it bluntly, the "ecstasy" of children or parents has been divorced from the simple cognition of ordinary people. Of course, if the source of money is legal, it is also the freedom and right of others to package their children "tall". However, when a deliberately "packaged" 13-year-old boy sat in the venue of the deep CPPCC meeting, he had become a quasi-public figure in essence. At this time, it is not so much that the public is observing and judging the child, but rather that the public is considering participating in the selection process of the deep CPPCC meeting, and the public is exercising their legitimate democratic supervision rights. Therefore, the parties concerned cannot evade the issue on the grounds of protecting minors. Parents of children should not feel "wronged", which is the price of high-profile publicity. Children "participate in the discussion of state affairs" while accepting public supervision, which are two sides of the same coin.