「哥」前「哥」後十分險out with the “big brother"?

搞運動一定要跟大佬,否則無效率?搞運動一定要拆大台,否則無自主?
咦,但為何拆大台的人又變為大佬?
有人無做大佬好耐,或從未做過大佬,為何又「被大佬」?
壟斷權力的人望住個反對派大佬,一槍做瓜你,或一個醜聞搞掂你,你班人就散……

人說「哥前哥後三分險」,但這樣看,豈只三分那麼簡單!
一班人一齊搞運動,想人人平等無大佬,如何才能做到?

must there be a ‘big brother’ in movement? otherwise there is no efficiency?

must the ‘big brother’s stage’ be torn down in movement? otherwise there is no autonomy?

some people have not been ‘the big brother’ for long, or they have never been a ‘big brother’ of anyone, why are they still being ‘big-brotherize’?

it is so easy for the authorities that monopolizes power to break down a social movement, either by killing the leader, or using scandal to defame the leader of movement…

in cantonese there is a saying: ‘ it’s a little bit dangerous to be named the “big brother"‘.

well, it’s not a little bit.

what actually can we do, if we want a social movement in terms of equality?

相關影片:
related films:

廣告

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s