But there is one issue missing from this whole debate about cancellations, virtual dismissals and lynchings: the responsibility of the communicator in times of intolerance and flagrant stupidity. Or, in the case of Monark, former host of the Flow podcast, irresponsibility. After all, a very sensitive topic such as Nazism is not addressed during a program that will be watched/heard by millions of people, many of them their opponents ideological, with a face admittedly full of mé, goró, manguaça, booze.
The care, in this and many other cases that resulted in the cancellation (which is nothing more than the symbolic elimination and also the symbolic transformation of the opponent into a thing
that, by definition, is disposable, as defended by Simone Weil that I never get tired of mentioning), the care it has nothing to do with submission to the authoritarianism of the ignorant mob, moved sometimes by clear ideological goals and sometimes “only” by the need for group acceptance. Care has to do with respect for the spectator, listener and reader. With respect to others – where have I heard this before? ) In the specific context of Monark and his clumsy speech, subject to all sorts of interpretations contaminated by that primitive feeling, even of a pack, that unites the left, the use of alcohol (and perhaps other psychotropic substances) is a complicating factor. That adds to the intellectual immaturity of the presenter and his audience, who have already grown up in this digital environment marked by the lack of commitment, the lack of ceremony and even the apathy resulting from the daily lobotomy of postmodern culture – which is averse to the very “traditional” idea ” of intelligence. Had been the respectful presenter not only with the guests , but especially with his audience, Monark would not have needed to resort to a substance to drown the superego (roughly, the psychoanalytic structure responsible for preventing us from doing “m” all the time). Speaking of psychoanalysis, I still see a what, or rather, two whats in the episode: the death drive and self-hatred. I hope I’m wrong, and I often am, but it seems that either one or the other will eventually end up in the emotional drain of victimhood. And here I’m not referring to the specific person, who I don’t even know, but to Monark with an example of generational behavior. Freedom of speech such as liberals (and libertarians, of course) advocate presupposes a mountain of responsibility. In fact, this is one of the biggest differences between the liberal and the socialist, whatever the degree: the former believes that man is responsible for what he says and does not need to be protected by the State; the second believes that it is up to the State to impose this notion of responsibility through the limitation of speech.Boldness happiness
In the case of irresponsible speech, the liberal assumes that the individual knows he will bear the consequences – which must be proportionate. The socialist, on the other hand, believes in censorship, silencing, proscription, intimidation – even as a way of teaching others the ignoble art of absolute submission.
Here, an addendum that sounds like a contradiction to some, but I assure you it is not: a certain amount of irresponsibility is necessary for the proper functioning of a society. All boldness is, in a way, irresponsible. And some, especially in the field of the arts, are more than welcome. It was an “irresponsibility” of the Impressionists not to adapt to the requirements of the Paris Salon, for example. It was rock “irresponsibility” to take a Bach piece and turn it into “A Whiter Shade of Pale.” It was an “irresponsibility” of Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David to create a sitcom about nothing.
But between the virtuous daring and the narcissistic stupidity (you thought that word would be missing, huh?) lie countless corpses – real or symbolic – of people who gave in to the temptation of the crowds and were trampled by them. By getting drunk before discussing a subject sensitive to millions of Jews and which is known to be raw material for the speech of hypocrites and opportunists of all kinds, Monark tried to be irresponsibly creative and daring. But he ended up proving to be a bad communicator addicted to the easy applause that would attest to his relevance in the sham fair (apud Guilherme Fiuza) that are social networks. He doesn’t deserve the virtual lynching he’s a victim of. But, bearded man that he is, he can’t say he ignored the risks.
