A few days ago, I was browsing a travel website and saw a few Americans and Europeans quarreling in the forum, which was very interesting. What are they arguing about? Originally from an American tourist complaining that Europeans smoked on the deck of the Mediterranean ferry despite their safety. Then another person joined, saying that he was “attacked” by smokers in a Spanish tavern, and that night was full of smoke. They complained about it, for example, “Although the Paris restaurant is banned indoors, there are still many smokers on the street, so people can’t get a fresh air.” Gradually, some people call Europeans – “the Europeans who smoke.” Several Europeans from different places were provoked and quickly counterattacked. They don’t defend their name of “smoking Europeans”, but instead blame Americans for their arrogance: If you can’t stand the smell of the Madrid pub, go back to your hometown to eat burgers.
This is a typical controversy. The Americans swear that the Europeans are all old smokers who are not leaving their hands. The Europeans and the Americans are arrogant arrogance. Yes, smoking is a bad habit, not good for yourself and harmful to others. But if you have seen this little noise, maybe you will slowly sympathize with the European team. Because some American tourists who complained about second-hand smoke did not really smoke second-hand smoke, they only saw second-hand smoke. When they saw someone smoking on the ferry deck, they instinctively resented and felt that there was a selfish ghost in the eyes of the public. They saw people smoking on the streets of Paris, and they couldn’t help but start to boring. This is really a bunch of fragile canaries.
Some people say that the anti-smoking campaign of contemporary Americans is actually to build an invisible umbrella around everyone, and it is also an extreme evolution of liberalism. It means that they are convinced that everyone has the freedom to be harmless, but what is called “harm” is a list that can be expanded indefinitely. Simply put, as long as it makes me unhappy, it is called infringement of my interests, it is called to hurt me. As for whether other people have the freedom to do certain things, it is the second-ranked consideration, which is no more important than the principle that I cannot be violated.
Smoke is an invisible thing that will diffuse and diffuse. In their view, the invisible shield around me must be extended to the limit of vision, in order to avoid damage to my interests. As long as I see you smoking at the next street, my freedom and right to breathe clean air has been hurt by you. And those “smoking Europeans” really shouldn’t hurt me, even though I am a tourist from a different place. My invisible golden bell moves with me, wherever I go, where I am guarded, without any cultural differences, because “freedom from others” is the most basic freedom of the world, transcending all cultural customs. On the contrary, liberalism talks about tolerance differences, and this aspect of coexistence with others is not the primary consideration of this American psychology. You have your freedom, as long as I don’t see, hear, and smell it, I can accept it.
In my opinion, one of the constituent elements of this American psychology is a protective cover against the “odor”. If the smoke is really a threat to health, it makes sense to put a line of defense on it, so what should the perfume do? Following the anti-smoking campaign, the latest sensitivities in the United States are “perfume-sensitive”.
Really, more and more Americans are beginning to complain in the media about the smell of perfume and cologne on others, “injuring my interests.” These people think they have “the freedom to not smell perfume.” Therefore, there are several counties and counties that stipulate that public transportation such as buses prohibits perfumes. That is to say, if you spray perfume to go out and take public transportation, it is very disrespectful of the performance of others. Then there are more places that are brewing legislation prohibiting the use of perfume in any public place. Will this be the next anti-smoking campaign from the United States? Perhaps in the near future, we will hear such a new argument: you have the freedom to smear perfume, as long as you are not smelled, so you better hide in your own home.
However, hiding at home can really let the various smells burst? Of course not, a major feature of American popular culture is its extreme sensitivity and perseverance to various odors. They are more concerned about “breathing” than anyone else, so they invented chewing gum and mouthwash and are still the biggest market for these two products. They are more worried about the smell of the body than anyone else, so the most common use of antiperspirants. They think that the washed clothes should have a special “fragrance”, so the soft paper in the dryer must carry the same smell.
In order to create a very clean environment, they use a variety of chemical products to eliminate everything that is considered to be unclean, while using more chemical products to create a clean environment that represents cleanliness. Over time, this has become the world’s most dependent and least sensitive country for chemical odors. Their sense of smell has been tied to a highly artificial invisible umbrella, and they can no longer smell (or don’t want to smell) the unfamiliar smell of Ding.