The Limits of Admiration

In recent days, social networks have been abuzz with the news that a number of famous people have been prosecuted and investigated for signs of violating the law. A businesswoman once known for her massive charity trips, supporting people in disaster areas, is now being prosecuted for serious accounting violations and tax evasion of thousands of billions of dong; a famous hot girl on the internet, who often shares her glamorous life mixed with charitable activities, is also facing accusations of producing and trading fake food products, with weight loss products containing banned substances that are harmful to health. Immediately after the information was announced, social networks immediately "stirred up": Some sympathized, some defended, some gloated, some condemned.

The crowd's reaction illustrates a reality: We live in an age where emotions can overwhelm reason, and admiration can sometimes be a fine line between love and blindness.

On social media, a touching video, a sweet word, or a charitable act can turn a person into an “idol”. They are honored, praised, and trusted. It is a familiar crowd psychology, a halo effect, where beautiful charitable acts cover up all flaws.

We are easily carried away by the glamorous images: Livestreams of donations, trucks carrying relief goods, or warm sharing about life. At that time, admiration is no longer pure admiration, but becomes a protective shell, causing us to ignore objective evidence. And then, when those people enter the legal vortex, that trust is shattered, leaving two extremes: either absolute defense, or absolute backsliding.

Crowds have short memories but strong emotions. When we love, we tend to idealize others, projecting a perfect image; and when we are disappointed, we tend to become extreme, denying all the values ​​we once had. Such reactions not only exhaust us, but also damage the core values ​​of society: justice, reason and right belief.

Admiring someone is not wrong, but it needs to have a limit - the limit of sobriety. When we blindly defend, we unintentionally blur the legal boundaries, turning justice into something that can be negotiated with "kindness". Such cases remind us that true charity is worthy of respect, but cannot be a shield for wrongdoing. Trust must be placed in sustainable values, in the legal system, not in individuals with many potential variables. Justice is the foundation to maintain trust in society, ensuring that real contributions are honored, and mistakes must be corrected.

Admiration is natural, it reflects the need to believe, to love, to find good role models in life; but admiration does not mean being blind. We can admire someone who has done good deeds, but cannot therefore deny their mistakes if any; just as we can sympathize with their mistakes, but cannot use love to replace the judgment of the law. Loving someone does not mean opposing justice. Because if justice is not respected, even honest people will lose the support to believe in what is right.

Just think, if we continue to blindly admire, what will happen to society? Consumers who trust and buy products because of the “kindness of the seller”, only to receive poor quality goods; genuine charitable activities are suspected because they are mixed with personal interests. It is a loss of trust for the whole community. We should not turn our backs on kindness, but admire wisely. Trusting in the right place will help us build a more just society where justice is not influenced by emotions.

It is necessary to correctly perceive that the law does not take sides other than the truth. Maintaining the limits of admiration is maintaining the sanity of the community. When an idol falls, instead of judging or covering up, see it as a reminder that no one is perfect, and the important thing is not to blame, but to let each person reflect on themselves. A loving society is good, but a society that loves within the framework of reason is a sustainable society.