新闻来源：www.nytimes.com
原文地址：Opinion | Should We Refrain From Gossip?
新闻日期：2024-09-12
我们是否应该避免流言？
我认为不应该停止流言。流言不仅不会让我们停滞在自己的思想圈子中，还能帮助我们更好地理解自己。当有朋友说你与伴侣的问题是正常的，会过去的；或者同事在利用年轻员工，需要干预；亦或是传递朋友的精彩故事，都让我们的生活更加丰富多彩。所以，我们不必停止流言。
中国将如何安置被收养的孩子？
《纽约时报》的文章准确地捕捉了中国终止跨国收养的决定，但文章没有回答最关键的问题：这些孩子会怎么样？虽然国内收养的数量有所增加，但这并不能说明问题。许多读者可能会认为这些孩子将会在中国国内被收养，但实际上，中国的国内收养主要涉及的是较小的孩子和健康的儿童。因此，那些较年长或有特殊需求的儿童仍面临没有家庭的困境。
特朗普能否再次“解决”问题？
如果唐纳德·特朗普再获得四年任期，我们届时会看到更多问题得以解决。
不要错过听力测试。
《纽约时报》的文章提到保持健康习惯的一个重要方面是：听力检查。未治疗的轻度听力损失几乎会使患痴呆症的风险增加一倍，而且随着听力下降程度的增大，这种风险也会随之增加。因此，建议大家今天就去做个听力检查。
原文摘要：
To the Editor:Re “Gossip: It’s Fun, It’s Natural, and These People Won’t Do It,” by Michal Leibowitz (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 31):Ms. Leibowitz assumes that the majority of “gossip” — talking about people who are not there — is negative. Certainly, curb or eliminate your need to endlessly complain about small grievances.However, taking away the opportunity for a friend to say that an issue with your partner is normal and will pass, or not normal and cause for concern, or that a colleague is taking advantage of younger employees and may need to be stopped, or passing along something amazing that happened to a friend and inspires you, would trap all of us in the locked room of our own brains, without windows, endlessly circulating our own stale thoughts.Talking about other people — problems, joys, sadnesses, successes — is how we understand ourselves, and when done thoughtfully, is empowering. Stories about other people have been the bedrock of society since people could communicate. They help us evolve, grow and thrive. No, we should not stop gossiping.Phoebe MillerwhiteClaremont, Calif.To the Editor:I absolutely love this essay because it speaks to me at a time when I’m grappling with the true meaning of friendship.I’ve found that gossip is a quick way to bond with new friends, whether they are male or female, but these connections don’t stand the test of time. Gossip is fleeting anyway, much like a sugar high; it comes and goes just like that. To be honest, it has sometimes given me a temporary boost by making me feel better about myself, as if seeing others’ flaws, struggles or even suffering somehow validates my own feelings.For years, I’ve avoided refined sugar because of its harmful effects on health, and I’ve come to see gossip in a similar way. Completely eliminating it will be challenging, but I’m committed to significantly reducing my involvement.Florence Huang-I ChiangTaipei, TaiwanTo the Editor:Gossip is fun if not malicious. After all, I made a career of it.To me, the caveat is never betraying a trusted source. Since I was a Washington, D.C.-based nationally syndicated political gossip columnist for five decades beginning at Roll Call in 1969 and appearing on the air dishing regularly with Joan Rivers during the Clinton presidency, Michal Leibowitz’s gossip story sparked my interest.I always felt the title “gossip columnist” implied negativity and/or fluff, something “less” than a serious professional journalist. I preferred to describe my gig as chronicling social history. At the time it was difficult for women to find their bylines in the news section much less on the front page. Newspapers relegated us to the women’s pages or lifestyle sections.But skewering the pretentious boldface name or telling the same story in an amusing, chatty style à la Liz Smith, Cindy Adams or Diana McLellan (“The Ear”) was not only more acceptable, but often our items were tips for larger stories rewritten for the front page with male bylines.In politics then, as now, much of what originates as “gossip” quickly escalates to “gospel.”Karen FeldWashingtonTo the Editor:Re “I Hope My Campus Is Even More Political This Year,” by Michael S. Roth, the president of Wesleyan University (Opinion guest essay, Sept. 3):Mr. Roth’s prescription for providing a safe space for the expression of political viewpoints on campus is nothing if not admirable, and might even work at a small liberal arts school like Wesleyan where civil discussions may be possible. But given the current environment and what we’ve witnessed happening on many of the larger campuses across the country, his approach seems simplistic and detached from reality.The protesters at these institutions making “their voices heard” haven’t just built peaceful encampments or called for divestment. They have engaged in tactics of harassment and intimidation that have included attacking Jewish students, barring students from entering campus buildings and threatening anyone perceived to be “Zionist.”A new report from Columbia University, for example, found that during the last academic year, Jewish students at that institution were pinned to the wall, had jewelry ripped off and were spat on and called hateful antisemitic slurs. These are clear civil rights violations that must not be left unaddressed.Of course, we strongly support the right of students to have and express political views on campus, and we agree with Mr. Roth that this is part of a long tradition of students exercising their right to free speech and dissent as part of the college experience.But is speech truly free if one portion of the student body adamantly refuses to listen, and another is feeling harassed and intimidated to the point where they must hide their identity to achieve even a modicum of safety on campus? I would submit that the answer is clearly “no.”Jonathan A. GreenblattNew YorkThe writer is the C.E.O. and national director of the Anti-Defamation League.To the Editor:“Foreigners Find Adoption Door Shut in China” (front page, Sept. 7) accurately captured China’s decision to end intercountry adoption, but the article didn’t focus on the most pertinent question: What will happen to the children?You note that domestic adoption in China has increased — and that’s true — but it’s a specious line of reasoning. Many of your readers will conclude that these children will be adopted in China instead of the U.S., but China’s domestic adoptions have not involved older children or children with special needs, who are the only children being placed internationally. The reality is that there is no plan for those children to have a family, in China or elsewhere.I have a son, born in China and adopted at age 1½. At the same time I learned of China’s announcement to end adoptions, my wife was driving him back from an out-of-state children’s hospital. He goes a few times a year to receive world-class medical care regarding a congenital medical condition.Your article says this is the end of a complicated chapter, but I don’t think that’s the right way to look at this. For these children, it’s the continuation of the same chapter — a childhood without parents, without family.Ryan HanlonAlexandria, Va.The writer is president of the National Council for Adoption.To the Editor:Donald Trump had four years to “fix” the border, four years to “fix” health care, four years to “fix” infrastructure, four years to “fix” domestic manufacturing, four years to “fix” whatever he thought wasn’t great about America.If he gets four more years, we will all be in quite a fix.Michelle BravermanHoustonTo the Editor:In “Quiz: Do You Have Healthy Brain Habits?” (Well, nytimes.com, Sept. 3), an important factor was missing: hearing loss.Hearing loss is the largest modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline. In fact, when left untreated, a mild hearing loss nearly doubles the risk of developing dementia, and as the hearing loss increases, so does this risk.Seeking a hearing test is a healthy brain habit we recommend — starting today.Laurie HaninNew YorkThe writer is executive director of the Center for Hearing and Communication.
