stridently

简明释义

英[ˈstraɪdntli]美[ˈstraɪdntli]

adv. 刺耳地；尖声地

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.It followed a front-page campaign spread over several days by Yedioth Ahronoth, the country's largest-selling newspaper, stridently arguing against an Israeli attack.

这个传闻使得几天前以色列发行量最大的报纸YediothAhronoth掀起一场声势浩大的运动，坚决反对以色列袭击伊朗。

2.Okinawans living near Kadena stridently oppose the marines, but the senators say the idea could free up land and reduce noise levels around Kadena.

居住在嘉手纳附近的冲绳岛居民反对海军的到来，但是参议员说这个提议能腾出土地并且减少嘉手纳附近的噪音等级。

3.His son Rand, newly elected as a senator from Kentucky, has also been stridently critical.

他的儿子兰德·罗恩——刚刚履职为来自于肯塔基州的参议员议员——对美联储的批评几近刻薄。

4.It followed a front-page campaign spread over several days by Yedioth Ahronoth, the country's largest-selling newspaper, stridently arguing against an Israeli attack.

这个传闻使得几天前以色列发行量最大的报纸YediothAhronoth掀起一场声势浩大的运动，坚决反对以色列袭击伊朗。

5.If I sound stridently female about Miss drum majorette, I don't mean to be.

要是关于鼓手队长小姐，我听起来刺耳的尖刻（女性化）， 我不是故意的。

6.During the debate, he expressed his views stridently, ensuring everyone knew where he stood.

在辩论中，他大声地表达了自己的观点，确保每个人都知道他的立场。

7.She argued stridently against the proposed legislation, believing it would harm the community.

她激烈地反对提议的立法，认为这将伤害社区。

8.The politician spoke stridently about the need for reform, making it clear that change was necessary.

这位政治家大声地谈论改革的必要性，明确表示需要改变。

9.The critics reviewed the film stridently, pointing out its numerous flaws without holding back.

评论家们尖锐地评价这部电影，毫不留情地指出了其众多缺陷。

10.The animal rights activists protested stridently, demanding an end to the cruel practices.

动物权利活动家们激烈地抗议，要求结束残酷的做法。

作文

In today’s world, the importance of voicing one’s opinions cannot be overstated. People from all walks of life are encouraged to express their views on various issues, whether they relate to politics, social justice, or environmental concerns. However, the way in which these opinions are presented can significantly affect their reception. Some individuals choose to speak stridently, which means in a loud, forceful, and often harsh manner. This approach can sometimes lead to more attention being drawn to their message, but it can also backfire, causing listeners to become defensive or dismissive.Consider the recent protests advocating for climate change action. Many activists have taken to the streets, holding signs and chanting slogans that demand immediate change. While their passion is commendable, the tone in which they deliver their messages can vary widely. Those who speak stridently often garner media attention, but they risk alienating potential allies. For instance, when activists use aggressive language or adopt a confrontational stance, they may unintentionally push away individuals who might otherwise support their cause.On the other hand, there are those who choose a more measured approach, opting to present their arguments with calmness and reason. This method can foster dialogue and understanding, encouraging others to engage with the issue rather than retreating into their own corners. When discussing complex topics like climate change, it is crucial to create an environment where open discussion can thrive. Speaking stridently may close off this possibility, leading to polarization rather than collaboration.Furthermore, the rise of social media has amplified the effects of how we communicate. Tweets and posts that are written in a strident tone often go viral, as people are drawn to sensationalism. However, this can perpetuate a cycle of negativity and hostility. Online discourse can quickly devolve into shouting matches, where individuals feel compelled to outdo one another in terms of volume and aggression. This phenomenon raises the question: is being heard worth sacrificing constructive dialogue?In my opinion, there is a time and place for speaking stridently. In situations where urgency is paramount, such as during a natural disaster or a critical political moment, a strong voice can be necessary to mobilize action. However, for most discussions, especially those requiring collaboration and consensus-building, a more thoughtful approach is likely to yield better results.Ultimately, the challenge lies in balancing the need to be heard with the desire for meaningful engagement. As we navigate the complexities of modern communication, it is essential to reflect on our own styles and consider how they impact our interactions with others. Are we aiming to inform, persuade, or simply shout? The choice of words and tone can make all the difference in how our messages are received.In conclusion, while speaking stridently may attract attention, it does not always facilitate understanding. By adopting a more respectful and measured tone, we can foster an environment where diverse opinions are welcomed and constructive dialogue can flourish. Let us strive for communication that builds bridges rather than walls, ensuring that our voices contribute positively to the conversations that shape our society.

在今天的世界中，表达自己观点的重要性不容小觑。来自各行各业的人们都被鼓励就各种问题发表看法，无论是政治、社会正义还是环境问题。然而，这些观点的表达方式会显著影响其接受程度。有些人选择以尖锐地（即大声、强烈且往往严厉的方式）发言。这种方式有时可以吸引更多的注意力，但也可能适得其反，使听众变得防御或轻视。考虑一下最近呼吁气候变化行动的抗议活动。许多活动家走上街头，举着标语，喊着口号，要求立即改变。虽然他们的热情值得赞赏，但他们传达信息的语气差异很大。那些以尖锐地发言的人往往能够吸引媒体的关注，但他们冒着疏远潜在盟友的风险。例如，当活动家使用激烈的语言或采取对抗的立场时，他们可能无意中推开那些本可能支持他们事业的人。另一方面，还有一些人选择更为温和的方法，选择以冷静和理性的方式呈现他们的论点。这种方法可以促进对话和理解，鼓励他人参与讨论，而不是退回到自己的角落。当讨论复杂的话题如气候变化时，创造一个开放讨论的环境至关重要。以尖锐地发言可能会关闭这种可能性，导致两极分化而非合作。此外，社交媒体的兴起加剧了我们沟通方式的影响。在社交媒体上，以尖锐地语气撰写的推文和帖子往往会迅速传播，因为人们被轰动效应所吸引。然而，这可能会加剧负面和敌意的循环。在线讨论很快就可能演变成争吵比赛，人们感到有必要在音量和攻击性方面超越彼此。这一现象引发了一个问题：被听见是否值得牺牲建设性的对话？在我看来，在某些情况下，尖锐地发言是合适的。在紧急情况如自然灾害或关键政治时刻，强有力的声音可能是动员行动所必需的。然而，对于大多数讨论，特别是那些需要合作和共识建立的讨论，更加深思熟虑的方法可能会产生更好的结果。最终，挑战在于平衡被听见的需求与追求有意义的互动之间。在我们应对现代沟通的复杂性时，反思我们自己的风格并考虑它们如何影响与他人的互动是至关重要的。我们是想要告知、说服，还是仅仅大声喊叫？用词和语调的选择可能会对我们的信息接收产生重大影响。总之，尽管以尖锐地发言可能会吸引注意，但并不总能促进理解。通过采取更尊重和温和的语气，我们可以营造一个欢迎多元意见和促进建设性对话的环境。让我们努力实现建立桥梁而非墙壁的沟通，确保我们的声音积极地为塑造我们社会的对话做出贡献。