In an era that replaced the intelligence services with supporters and intellectuals with militants, how do we know the reality? How do we select information without bothering to do wholesale psychological analyzes of the intentions of those who report it, without wasting our days reconstructing the lines, in short: How can we trust those who tell us? Can we fool ourselves into knowing what we’re talking about? Short answer: No.
Jon Stewart is a comedic genius, and he’s also one of those who broke my balls at some point and went back to the countryside. Every now and then he appeared on The Stephen Colbert Show: He got him started making television, many years ago, then Colbert became Letterman’s replacement (and better – aloof – presenter of the second American evening) and Stewart retired. .
Apple last year Convince him to go back to doing something non-binding, a biweekly episode, maybe you’ll cover it in double-words (I don’t add “on the other hand he’s a Jew” just because I need to hold your indignation for twenty lines, I can’t waste it now). They add a podcast to the show, which is the new onanistic game: Everyone makes a podcast, and no one listens to them. But absolutely no one: those who say they listen to them play with pressure and then begin to do something else and will not be able to tell you at least what they were talking about at that hour when they listened in theory.
And so on a podcast a month ago, Stewart was fooled by two kids (Apple’s formula is that Stewart has dueling partners who offer alternative views of being “old and white,” and I certainly wouldn’t make jokes about these new social patterns) over the fact that the bankers in the Harry Potter films are as They are to represent the Jews in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Since no one listens to the podcast, no one notices. A month goes by — in Stewart’s words: “Two Corona spikes since” — someone wakes up to a digested turkey and notices the podcast, that this person is from Newsweek, and the headlines: Jon Stewart accuses JK Rowling of anti-Semitism.
“Anti-Semitism” was the accusation that got everything before all accusations (from sexism to skill, passing through fancy things I wouldn’t give her dignity to) were considered drinkable. He still holds more power today, not only because he came first, but above all because between those who say “they killed my grandfather in the gas chamber” and those who say “they called me with the wrong pronouns” it is quite clear who reigns in the victorious tournament.
Curves are ready with scarves and horns, and they line up without any surprise (the last time I was surprised by a cultural party, I bought five hundred liras from Crescenta to go to school).
On my social networks, the news arrives very divided.
Postmodern enthusiasts, for whom it does not seem correct to say “Not only is Rolling Turf, but also anti-Semitic” (“terf” is an acronym with which postmodernists refer to those women who believe that if the locker rooms in the The gym is by gender, that sticks to anatomy not perception, and if you wave your pegolo, you should stay in the male gym even if you see yourself as Carmen Miranda).
British feminists have defended Rowling by making a Harry Potter page depiction of orcs – who are not actually depicted with their hooked noses in movies – and say sexism is to blame, not the billionaire producers.
Saperlalunghisti who explained to us that Stewart should attack Rowling so as not to alienate the postmodern audience after defending Chappelle (I don’t have the patience to tell you about Chappelle’s question: Review before reading me, rather than complaining about multidisciplinary cross-references).
The three categories have one thing in common: They haven’t heard of the podcast. Indeed, after a few hours of babbling, Stewart arrives to say something that any Carabinieri or prosecutors transcribed knows: things are said in one tone; If it wasn’t a screenwriter, but a gendarme copied it, the tone is muddled and remains: anti-Semitism, profanity.
Newspapers – learned from a particular trial she was accused of, the world taught her from those copies of Carlo and Camilla that you should have reviewed Before reading here – they sound more like genius than screenwriters in not being able to get the tone back.
Stewart says they do it on purpose, And the people of Newsweek give the arsonists. (He also says: Once upon a time if something was in Newsweek, it meant something, and I almost started crying. Remember, twentieth century? You can be sure he wasn’t an idiot. What a crazy nostalgia, I can barely miss the cabins coin-operated a lot).
At Christmas on BBC, it was broadcast live very british scandal. It is the story of the divorce of the Dukes of Argyll in the 1950s. The reason they tell them is one that appears superimposed at the end: it was the first time a woman had been shamed by English newspapers for sexual reasons. The Duke of Argyll brought to court pictures of the Duchess hitting someone (his, in the version of events chosen by the TV discount).
But that’s not why we sympathize with her. The reason the Duke of Argyll as described on screen bothers us is that he’s willing to do anything not to work and get support. One thing that if women do this, we claim it is their right and we should not allow ourselves to say that women should work outside the home and feminism is to respect everyone’s choices. If the woman does not want to work, then it is correct that if she is separated and divorced, then the ex-wife goes part of the liquidation. If the woman does not want to work, she is entitled to alimony by virtue of divorce.
When the man is the man who is kept, we can finally say how much we despise those who are held captive. There will undoubtedly be the story of a woman willing to do anything to live a life she has no intention of working to endure – telling any class visitor who deals with family law that even today is full of wives who break up with an intention that is kept for life – but no TV producer will tell us that makes sense that day.
Because objectivity does not exist: there are copies of facts, and the illusory effort to be made – not only in the face of the historical record, but also in the face of imaginary reconstructions – to understand the facts behind the message that spirit of the times made us stay.