You are not bad…
…I'm sure of it (at least as far as those of you I know, or knew, are concerned). I am absolutely certain that you do not do certain things with animus nocendi : on the contrary! If you behave in a certain way it is clearly because you are pervaded by the sacred fire of doing something, of serving the cause, because you are possessed, intoxicated by the enthusiasm of having understood, and consequently (?) of holding the key to understanding that can help others read the world the right way (?).
This key has a name that starts with "v" and ends with "erity".
Now, it is true that more than once I happened to point out to you that truth is not a political category (for example here, speaking to you about the Single Party of Truth ), just as honesty is not (cha cha cha), the latter topic that we addressed at the time (in 2012). So in theory if many of you (almost all) think they can address political reasoning by brandishing the Truth like a club (which, in general, would be what they think they understood by reading me and someone else), it shouldn't be my fault. : I told you, it doesn't work like that! However, since in practice it is likely that some of my considerations will slip through the cracks (for example, some of you may have missed the post on the Single Party of Truth), and on the other hand it is certain that between looking (like a cow looking at a road sign ) and reading there is a difference (and you are not always on the right side of this divide), then it happens that accidents happen, the conclusion of which, invariably, is to let pass what has been trying for thirteen years to help you think in critical way (I don't know if you've noticed…) for someone who ensnares you with abstruse theories, and you, who, after all, are not bad, for brainless followers of a sect!
Could we please avoid it?
Not that I care what you or others think of me: I wouldn't want to cloyingly go back to my programmatic refusal of consent, which in any case remains the only genuine guarantee for anyone who decides to give me this consent! But since you are not bad, I am sorry that others think badly of you. To avoid this, you should perhaps connect some dots that I have tried to provide you in the course of our common journey. Let's try to do it, or do it again, starting from an example, this one:
I don't know who the guy from the Library of Alexandria is, although, in my opinion, he doesn't work badly, and I like to follow him in some of his stories (for example, the series on the Italian colonial experience is very interesting). I imagine the other is the idol of many of you (I am fully aware of this only in the case of some betrayed lovers!), I have never listened to one of his videos, and he seems to me to be a perfect interpreter of what we could call "the banality of the sensational". However, it is not this comparative evaluation that I would like to focus on, or at least not now. The considerations I have made do not imply that the versions of one or the other seem more plausible to me: it would be truly idiotic to delve into this reasoning in a post that starts from the assumption that in the end the "Truth" (or perhaps we should call it veritah) it is not a political category! In the end, what applies to Report also applies to Luogo comune (which I understand is Mazzucco's site).
What I would like to draw your attention to instead are the very first minutes of the video of the librarian of Alexandria, those in which he catalogs the comments received under another video of his concerning (as I understand) Ukraine (and which interests me for the right reason on this, as on other topics, I formed my opinion about ten years ago and it remains the same). The poor librarian, who seems like a civilized person, is bombarded with comments like this: "Watch this video and you will find the truth!" comes to a conclusion: "I have never seen that video and I have no intention of seeing it, absolutely no intention of seeing it!"
I know you will be shocked, but in my opinion his conclusion is not only legitimate (because everyone has the right to see what they like), it is not only natural (because anyone who is attacked instinctively defends himself), but it is also, in a more deep, right.
Strange how the word that ends with "erity" seen from the other side ends up with "fuck off"…
And you'll say to me: "Yes, that's fine (maybe…), but why do you feel the need to tell us?"
Because many, too many of you (in my opinion even one would be too many) behave like the "assertive" commentators of the poor librarian, that is, they behave, not knowingly and scientifically (because you are not bad!), but objectively, in such a way as to distance any reader who is indifferent, or even slightly biased for or against our critical arguments, from reading the contents that you advocate so vehemently, so as to arouse in those who have not yet come across them a visceral disgust for your "truth" (which then it would be me).
Similarly, many, too many of you, intervene on those who believe to be trolls (and who perhaps are, based on the objective parameters that we know or should know ) by acting as trolls, that is, insulting, insisting, etc.
I'll spare you examples for the sake of my country (and also because I don't have time to look for them, but if you don't straighten yourself out I'll be forced to do so), just as I'll spare you examples of best practice (I'd say that Claudio can be considered a reference repertoire).
Instead, I like to comment on an episode from a few days ago, because it is particularly indicative of the fact that you are not bad. It started like this:
(bottom up).
Summary: on January 9th and 10th you desperately tried to do something that I hadn't asked you, when I hadn't asked you (having never asked you), and in a way that I would have advised you against because it was clearly counterproductive: sending #goofynomics trending.
What I asked for was something different: use the hashtag #goofynomics if you posted Goofynomics content . This thing could have had a meaning: for example that of helping those who were intrigued by the content of a post or a tweet to find similar ones and perhaps land here. But sending #goofynomics trending for the sake of it was counterproductive in at least a couple of quite obvious ways (it hurts to point out the obvious). One is already highlighted in the exchange above, but for greater clarity I will provide you with another example:
In your opinion, someone who doesn't know what #goofynomics is, what interest can he have in learning more about it if he finds himself in contact with such a bubble of self-referential idiots!? I would run like hell, and consider that Goofynomics c'est moi ! I add something more technical, but if we want even more obvious: the algorithm, as is obvious (I repeat myself) penalizes spam . How can you be so… so "not bad" that you think that an algorithm lets itself be forced by spam !? If repeating a hashtag sixty times in a tweet was enough to go trending, everyone could go trending! But obviously (I insist, because it is obvious, as it is obvious that you are not bad) the algorithm penalizes spam , hence this wise advice:
which, allow me to underline, is a bit strange to have to give to people who, like you, live on social media!
The answer to the question "why #goofynomics isn't trending" was therefore very simple: because by spamming this tag you were sending it to the blacklist:
Therefore, not out of malice (because you are not evil), you were achieving an end that was the opposite of your intentions, and above all of mine (which in fact I had not asked you for anything, and if I had asked you something I would not have asked you this ): penalize the hashtag that I asked you to use correctly (and not to try to trend external genitalia of carnivores).
Eggnente, you haven't understood where you are: yet I tried to make you understand in every way! You are at the home of someone who doesn't support Faust .
Those of you more familiar with languages know that in Rome, when we say of someone that he is not bad, it is because we mean that he is a "cojone" (the correct spelling is this). If I dedicated an evening that I should have dedicated to something else to reiterate to you my profound conviction that you are not bad, it is to emphasize my suffered and shared hope that you will become, or at least seem to be, less "assholes", because this is neither good nor to you, nor to me, nor to the supreme interest of the Debate.
If you also want to get naughty, I'd appreciate it. In any dramatic work the villain may lose, but he is certainly more fascinating and pleasant to be around than the "badass". And since, although thirteen years have already passed, we are only at the beginning of our journey, you will understand that I would prefer to continue it without getting bored…
But above all, I insist on this concept, I ask you for a minimum of coherence with the warlike rhetoric that penetrates and permeates you all, the rhetoric of the decisive clash, the rhetoric of the enemy, the rhetoric of the eternal struggle of Good (you?) against Evil. Let's take as a convenient working hypothesis that we are actually at war and that you are something similar to soldiers. Well. So I'm your Sergeant Foley, from which it follows that you have to do what I say, when I say it and how I say it, which is a bit the opposite of what you did: do something I didn't tell you to do, when I didn't tell you to do it, and how I didn't tell you to do it!
I say this in your interest, not mine! Social media is a game, life is elsewhere. But you like to win. In your opinion, did #borghidimettiti and #bagnaiarrogante trend by chance?
In my opinion no.
So just do what I ask, or ignore me. I'd rather lose alone than win in company, but if there's one thing that pisses me off, it's losing in company because of others!
Especially when they're not bad…
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/2024/01/voi-non-siete-cattivi.html on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:16:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.