But let's change the subject.
In the debate we must remain calm, because only in this way can we be able to maintain clarity, concentration, and effectiveness, but also because this is what that great unknown that is good education requires. The agitated attitudes of many of you do not only endanger you (and up to here, once we have told you in every way, if ever you were to suffer the consequences we would not waste too much time crying), but they also put you in difficulty. we! The different vertebrates (so to speak) can't wait to play the weeps by attributing to us your statements and attitudes, for which therefore you are responsible, and not us.
Although this further distortion of the facts is objectively annoying, I would urge you to understand them, on at least two levels.
The first is that those who have enjoyed for decades the intoxicating sensation of being immune from any right of criticism, of being able to literally say anything without verification, in a world where information, paradoxically, was more ephemeral despite being on a support less evanescent (paper), it is ill-suited to being subjected to stringent control over the web, where everything remains, and where anyone has access to primary sources. Today, those who say one thing for another run a serious risk of being censored on social media, where peer pressure still exists and which remain a formidable tool of demystification. It follows, in selected cases, a certain victimhood …
The second, however (appreciate the adverse conjunction), is that everyone has a family (even you, I'm sure …), and therefore it makes no sense to insult someone just because we don't like their editorial line.
Just ignore it, don't follow it, don't read it, don't buy it, don't give it visibility, which, among other things, also forces those who subsidize the publishing project that we don't like to pay more money to keep it alive! Gramsci said so , as I have reminded you many times here, and if in Gramsci's time it was somehow minimally excusable that the proletarian kept the bourgeois newspaper alive by giving it his penny, because the proletarian did not have other sources of information, today there are no excuses: you have access to press releases from governments and super-governments, to national and supranational statistics, to the foreign press (which also responds to those who pay it, as it is right and lawful that it is, but adds variety of perspective to the debate), etc. So: today there is no excuse either for being rude (there never are), or for continuing to finance those who misinform.
Having reiterated this truth, this time not in yours, but in our interest, that is, in the interest of those you have given the opportunity to bring your ideas to the media, I must nevertheless confess that sometimes it is actually quite challenging to remain calm. You have an example in this sketch:
after having read which I beg you to re-read this post .
You must never call someone an idiot or an idiot or an idiot. But, objectively, there are circumstances where this requires more effort. And you should always try to understand who you are dealing with. The many "experts" (de what?) Intervened in the discussion under that post in many cases had not adhered to this last elementary rule of prudence. They thought they were talking to "a senator of the League" (that is, an ugly Nazixenomophobofasciolegist), but, incidentally, they were also talking to someone who has a certain instinct for data, and therefore, "consequently", urged a certain caution to affirm that the United States was the "most affected" country, whatever the metric adopted and regardless of the criteria on the basis of which this qualification was attributed to them by press sources.
Unfortunately, time is a gentleman, and punctually the data, the cold and in this case macabre data , give reason to those who have to give it (which is always the same person: what a beard, what a bore …).
So: when you come here, remember who you are talking to, and when you go around respect those you talk to.
And that's all for today.
(… ah, yes, by the way, "we" have not been an example in managing the crisis. The numbers say this, but, as you know, today on television 2 + 2 = 5. We are also prepared for this, and we will overcome this too …)
This is a machine translation of a post (in Italian) written by Alberto Bagnai and published on Goofynomics at the URL https://goofynomics.blogspot.com/2020/11/qed-94-il-paese-piu-colpito.html on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 19:19:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.