本文系2022年第十三届《英语世界》杯翻译大赛英译汉译稿及译后笔记由于主办方由于服务器拥堵原因，自行将截止时间延迟一天，所以上一篇推送我先自行删除。但我对这种儿戏而不负责任的行为予以谴责。
Why Cancel Culture Is Toxic[1] Cancel culture - which sees individuals and brands spurned due to comments, actions or stances that some perceive to be wrong - is nothing new. “Fundamentally, cancel culture is about shame,” explains chartered psychologist and author of How to Build a Healthy Brain, Kimberley Wilson. “Shame emerges in response to the feeling that we have transgressed against some agreed social rule and lost status within the group.” Wilson says that evolutionary psychologists believe shame played a role in our survival - once upon a time, doing something that got us expelled from our tribe would have been life threatening.取消文化——即某人、某品牌因其话语、行为，或立场不当，而遭部分人抵制——并非新鲜事。“追根溯源，取消文化关乎于羞耻。”金伯莉·威尔逊（Kimberley Wilson）解释道。她是一名特许心理学家，著有《如何构筑健康的大脑》一书。“当我们违反某些默认的社会规则，在群体中失去地位时，便会感到羞耻。”威尔逊说，依照进化心理学家的看法，羞耻感使人得以生存——在远古时期，做了错事而被驱逐出部落的话，便难以存活。[2] But while being ostracized from society for wrongdoings has been a risk throughout human history, and while we’ve always - rightly - called attention to injustices, social media has given rise to a particularly virulent form of mob justice that is degrading our (already taxed) mental health.纵观人类历史，一犯错就驱逐他人，都有其隐患，纵使我们总是悲天悯人地倡导公义，社交媒体却已然催生出了一种恶意满满的“暴民审判”，使得我们的心理状况雪上加霜。[3] “Social media has democratized shaming (we can all shame anyone we like), simultaneously expanding its reach, stripping away any mitigating or humanizing context, and leaving a permanent paper trail of what might have been a momentary indiscretion,” says Wilson. She believes one of the biggest mental health risks of online cancelling is the “pile on” - the fact that within minutes a person could be verbally attacked by thousands of people. “For the ‘cancelled’ person it can feel as though they are being attacked by the whole world.” For anyone watching, there’s the feeling you could easily be next.“社交媒体使羞辱变得更普遍了（我们想羞辱谁就羞辱谁），所触及的范围也更广泛了。临时起意的一句轻率之言，放在语篇中可能还比较温和、讲道理，却被断章取义，留下了永久的书面记录。”威尔逊说到。她认为，网络上的“取消”，之所以会给心理健康造成极大伤害，主要便在于其气势汹汹的“跟风”阵势——在网上，一个人可能几分钟内就会接连遭受几千人谩骂。“对于被‘取消’的人来说，似乎整个世界都在攻击自己。”而目睹着一切的人，也害怕自己会变成下一个。[4] In its current form, cancel culture is anonymous, fueled by a pack mentality, and intensely polarizing - “I am right, you are wrong.” It teaches us that if someone does something wrong, or champions someone or something that we may not like or agree with, then we must stop supporting them immediately. No grey areas allowed: they’re cancelled, they’re finished, and their name is attached to the #IsOverParty hashtag to prove it.当前的取消文化，参与形式都是匿名的，由一种暴民的从众心理所驱使，极端、非黑即白——“我是对的，你就是错的”。这种文化所遵循的便是：只要某人做错了些事，或支持了某些我们不喜欢、不赞同的人或事，我们就要立马不再支持他。没有中间的灰色地带：“取消”他，他完蛋了，把他的名字加进“#XX塌房”的话题标签发出来，以表明态度。[5] However, while calling out bad behavior might be important, a culture that encourages people to be quick to cancel and reluctant to forgive is dangerous. It creates an environment that doesn’t allow anyone to correct their behavior (they should’ve known better), nor learn from their mistakes. And after all, mistakes, without sounding trite, are part of what makes us human. They’re how we grow and develop as people.虽然指出他人的错误行为也挺重要，但不由分说地迅速“取消”他人，不允许他人悔过，这种做法也实在危险。这种环境下，人们事后纠正自己的行为（虽事前就应警觉），从错误中吸取教训，都变得没有意义了。但俗话说“吃一堑长一智”，其实这并不老套。因为正是“错误”，才使我们得以成长为人。[6] “Cancel culture often denies the cancelled individual the most basic of human opportunities: to apologies and to be absolved,” explains Wilson. “Because the road to redemption is blocked by the indignant mob.” A quick apology is viewed as insincere, a slow one as being issued under duress, and the matter can still be resurrected days, weeks, even years later.“取消文化，常常剥夺了被取消之人的基本权利：即道歉并获得谅解的机会，”威尔逊解释道，“因为愤怒的暴民盘踞在他人悔改的路上。”道歉得太快他们会说你不真诚，道歉得太慢又会说你不情愿，但事情本身却被忽略，几天、几周，甚至几年后，可能又会再犯下同样的错误。[7] In terms of benefits to “cancelling”, there are a few. As with ancient ostracizations, the fear of shame can potentially keep our behavior in check. Plus, it gives a voice to people who may otherwise be powerless—creating tangible consequences for those who have more power in society, such as large, multinational brands.要说“取消”的益处，也还是有一些的。正如在远古时期，害怕遭到驱逐，这种羞耻感多多少少可以规范我们的行为。另外，它也让一些无权无势的人得以发声——使得社会中的权豪势要有所顾忌，例如一些大型的跨国品牌。[8] However, while public shaming can make an individual less likely to repeat a behaviour, and consumer opinion can lead to significant and positive shifts in a company, the majority of cancelled victims are not powerful people or brands. For every celebrity moved to sign an open letter disavowing cancel culture, there are 10 vulnerable people who quietly suffer personal, devastating harm.公开地让一个人感到羞耻，大都能使其不再重复某种行为，而消费者的看法也能为一家公司带去正向积极的重大改变。纵然如此，“取消文化”中的受害者，大多不是有权势的人或品牌。我们每看到一个名人站出来，签署反对“取消文化”的公开信，背后就有十个可怜人正默默地承受着天崩地裂的人身伤害。[9] Ultimately, the collective bullying and cancellation of individuals for relatively minor, one-off events or comments (without the possibility of reform), often outweighs the harm caused by the actual event or comment. Should someone lose their reputation or their job - their entire livelihood, upon which perhaps their family also depends - because of one tweet? Do they deserve to have their lives torn apart, their homes targeted, death threats flooding their inboxes?不管怎么说，相对轻微而个别的事件或言论（也不允许自我改正），其本身的危害，常常远不及随之而来的集体霸凌和“取消”所带来的危害。仅因一条推特，就该剥夺一个人的名誉和工作吗？剥夺这份可能是他全家人都仰赖着的生计吗？他的生活就活该被撕碎，家庭就活该被攻击，邮箱就活该被塞满死亡恐吓吗？[10] Good mental health depends on flexibility, on compassion, and on understanding. It relies on apologies and forgiveness, and (like any good penal system), sees mistakes as an opportunity not for punishment, but for reform. When it comes to cancelling, don’t give in to online peer pressure - do your own research and allow people to be sorry. We’ve all said and done stupid things that we regret. We’ve all made mistakes. And we all deserve second chances, even on the internet.心理要健康，则需要大家放下偏执，同情他人，理解他人。还依赖于道歉能得到谅解，依赖于在人们犯错时，（如合理的刑罚体系那般）以督促改正为目的，而非以犯错为理由来惩罚。在网上遇到“取消”时，不要人云亦云——自己调查研究一下他人到底说了做了什么，即使是错了，也要允许他人悔过。我们都做过一些让自己后悔的蠢事。我们都犯过错。我们也都理应得到改正的机会，在网络上也是一样的。
译后笔记
Cancel Culture
Cancel Culture，已有相当多讨论，亦被多方译介为“取消文化”（例如BBC中文[1]、端传媒[2]等），似乎已成为一个专有的词汇。虽然其内涵与以往的“抵制”有部分重合，但Cancel Culture在英语语境中，亦为近年新兴的说法（区别于以往的boycott），所以不宜用一些旧词来译。本译文选择保留稍微拗口，看字面意思无法理解，但已有译介的译法，即“取消文化”。使用“取消文化”，亦方便读者见到此词时，自行搜索补充背景知识。在标题中首次出现时，打上引号，避免理解成动宾短语（即：把“文化”给“取消”了）。
Toxic
根据纽约时报2018年的一篇报道，toxic一词被牛津选为年度词汇。在报道中写道[3]，toxic来源于希腊语toxikon pharmakon，原指毒箭，后来“箭”的意涵减少，“毒”保留了下来。在早期，toxic仅指化学上的“毒”，而其延伸的比喻意经过了1980年代一本心灵鸡汤，1990年代的《欲望都市》小说，以及最终通过2003年小甜甜布兰妮“Toxic”一歌后，才广泛地使用开来。而近年来的爆发，则是始于“toxic masculinity”一用法，即“有毒的雄性气概”（类似于“蝈蝻”）。根据Urban Dictionary，toxic的流行意思是指[4]：Adjective used to describe usually very negative person, that bitch about everything, spread unnecessary hate or just talk shit about others. You can meet these people in any online game community and they are the main coin of online gaming.
相比toxic作为形容词，toxic people更容易理解。可以译为“垃圾人”（偏台湾、东南亚地区使用），或是“喷子”（但喷子太过强调言语方面，我认为toxic就是一种看谁都不爽，对任何人和事物都充满恶意的一种态度，能被感知到虽依赖于言语，但是更强调内在秉性）。
而中文中的“有毒”，除了“有害”的意思，近年还延伸出了一种新的意涵，我认为更偏向于“奇怪的、无益的，但令人上瘾的”，是一种偏戏谑的形容，通过反喻来表达一种非贬义的意思。例如：“这个视频有毒”= “这个视频好怪。再看一眼。”
但文中这个词仅在标题出现一次（另在文中有相近的virulent一词），并不是文章重点。同时toxic感觉比harmful程度更深一些，同时出现在标题，所以选一个大词来翻译，择译为“贻害无穷”。
Mob Justice (Para.2)
本词很多地方选择直译为“暴民正义”。英文中不加引号，因为justice本身含有单纯而中立的“审判”之意（韦氏词典justice-1b: JUDGE）。而中文里的“正义”，天然包含褒义的“正”。所以若译为“暴民正义”，应该打上引号以示内涵变更。本译文选择译为“暴民审判”，带上引号，以示生造。
Democratise (Para.3)
“... has democratised shaming”一句，尽量避免用“民主化”这种译法：“羞辱变得民主化”，不知所云。根据韦氏词典，democratic释义之三：relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people，也就是“更加普遍，更多人能接触到”的意思。原文中的括号亦指明这一点。所以择译为“...使羞辱变得普遍了”。
Pile On (Para.3)
根据韦氏词典，pile on为美国非正式用语：to join other people in criticizing something or someone in usually an unfair way；而剑桥词典仅指出其“快速增加（累加）”的意思。根据破折号后的解释，应该是两个意思都涵盖了。本译文选择扩写一些，译为“气势汹汹的‘跟风’阵势”。
#IsOverParty (Para.4)
译文中我加上了引号，以符合中文标点符号规范。另外，这个词一开始我打算译为“完蛋”、“完犊子”，但是查阅一些资料后，认为原文含有party一词，就是说明是从一个原先好的状态，变为一个不好的状态，而“完蛋”、“完犊子”体现不出来。刚好饭圈有“塌房”一词，形容的就是原先好好的，突然崩塌了。所以就借用来翻译这个词。
Flexibility (Para.10)
Good mental health depends on flexibility. 如果翻译为“心理健康依赖于灵活性”，就有点不知所云。这里的flexibility应该是指不要一根筋，不要认死理，不要非黑即白，不要当二极管。所以这里选择翻译为“放下偏执”。同时这里的flexibility以及后边的compassion和understanding，应该是对整个网民群体说的，而不是对被害人说的，所以另外添加上“大家”一词。
Para. 2
文中出现了不少括号和破折号来补充信息的做法，译文中不追求一一对应，有时直接用整句去覆盖了全部意涵。例如“... degrading our (already taxed) mental health”翻译为“使得我们的心理状况雪上加霜”，“雪上”便是“already taxed”，“加霜”便是degrade，没有必要按照原文的括号句式来翻译。
Para. 3
原句拆成两句。后半句“... stripping away any mitigating or humanising context, and leaving a permanent paper trail of what might have been a momentary indiscretion”重新整合了句子结构，翻译为“临时起意的一句轻率之言，放在语篇中可能还比较温和、讲道理，却被断章取义，留下了永久的书面记录”。
Para. 5
It creates an environment that doesn't allow anyone to correct their behaviour (they should’ve known better), nor learn from their mistakes.
这一句，若直译，便是：这创造了一种不允许任何人纠正自己行为，也不允许从错误中吸取教训的环境。但理解上会有问题，因为原文的doesn't allow，并不是不让人纠正，不让人吸取教训，你照样可以改正和道歉，只不过网民不买账而已。所以应该是说，你纠正了吸取教训了也没有用。所以我选择不直译，并且补充一句解释。整句翻译为：在这种环境下，人们事后纠正自己的行为（虽事前就应警觉），从错误中吸取教训，都变得没有意义了。
这一句紧接着的“And after all”，常翻译为终究/毕竟，是表达一种转折关系。为了符合上下文语境，我选择翻译为“但“，并将后边的句子打破重组。
It relies on apologies and forgiveness一句，直译为“（心理健康）依赖于道歉和原谅”。可我认为这里如果直译，体现不出作者本意来，可能读起来更像“把道歉说出口，能让自己心理好受一些”。但按照我的理解，作者的本意是指“道歉和原谅（的体系）”，即“在道歉后，别人能原谅你，你有机会能够改正”，这样一套善意的体系。这一点在前后文中其他部分也有所体现。所以英文中的apologies和forgiveness，是有先后顺序的一套（循环往复）的体系。我放弃按照字面原意来翻译，想了几种译法：1.道歉和随之而来的原谅，2.能被原谅的道歉，3.道歉能得到谅解。最终定为3。
[1]“取消文化是什麼：你要知道的一個網絡新詞 - BBC News 中文,” accessed June 8, 2022,https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/world-53366321.[2]“讀者來函：取消文化的來龍去脈和政治正確｜廣場｜端傳媒 Initium Media,” accessed June 8, 2022,https://theinitium.com/article/20200906-notes-cancel-culture/.[3]Jennifer Schuessler, “‘Toxic’ Is Oxford’s Word of the Year. No, We’re Not Gaslighting You.,” The New York Times, November 15, 2018,https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/arts/toxic-oxford-word-of-the-year-2018.html.[4]“Urban Dictionary: Toxic,” accessed June 8, 2022, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Toxic.
