The use of random words in politics.

When I listened to the video where the cowardly RAI officials try to sweeten a system, the dynamics did not surprise me so much. The dynamic is that of cowardice: the officials in question are shitting themselves because their boss will be angry with them if something goes wrong at the concert. Because they are terrified, and cowardly , they make the usual cowardly call, cowardly as little men with great power can be.

For little men a great power (or a power too great for them, who are very small) is like being thrown into a kind of Arena that crushes their cowardice: if you are a coward, any responsibility is too great and any choice is too difficult. The coward wants to live only on gestures justified by procedures, which he will then use as justifications. It is useless to look for traces of leadership in a coward, after all.

The thing that struck me instead, in their dialectic, was the use of empty, almost random words. When it comes to "inappropriate context". It is something that, if you notice it, does not make sense. What the fuck does "inappropriate context" mean? If the context is "inopportune", whatever that means, in any case it is the context that is appropriate, so the problem is in the context. Not in Fedez or whatever he says. But then what context are we talking about? Is May 1st that is inappropriate? Is it the concert? What would this context be? And why would it be "inappropriate"?

The problem is that we are dealing with cowards, and as such they struggle to take a stand.

Clarifying is taking a stand. No coward ever makes it clear.

Lillo also says so, in his clumsy attempt to defend: https://www.corriere.it/spettacoli/21_maggio_03/caso-fedez-lillo-nessuno-ha-parlato-censura-semmai-edulcorare-suo-discorso-527cef68- abfe-11eb-85bf-b7fbcf91bb8d.shtml

So ultimately an unspecified context would be inappropriate for reasons never mentioned. Same thing for the "editorial issue". What is the issue we are talking about? What is the object of the sentence, of the conversation? And why the question, whatever it is, is "editorial" and, to say, not "alimentary"? I mean, if we don't specify what this "question" is, we can give it anything: "editorial", "anal", "virginal", "astrological", "dietary"…. who cares, so much ex false quodlibet sequitur.

But this linguistic behavior is typical of the coward and clearly identifies him: in clarifying, in fact, one always takes a stand. If they had said "listen, the League has a League's CDA and the editorial issue is that they make us a big ass if you say these things, and we are doing it underneath" they could have annoyed the boss. If they had said that the "inappropriate context" was the May 1st concert, that it was inappropriate because it was for the League they would have closed it, they would have taken a stand.

In that way, the cowards believe they have taken no position. Without realizing that now they cannot even find the protection of the boss: if they had said "listen coconut, here in RAI the League commands, you have to do as the League says", a mess would have happened anyway, but the League would have had to defend the his puppets. But in this way, now they have closed themselves in limbo: the League has no advantage in defending them, because it would not be a display of loyalty to their men.

Another linguistic disaster comes from articles such as this one: https://roma.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/05/03/news/pio_e_amdeo_ruth_dureghello_le_parole_giustificano_la_storia_quanti_passi_indietro_per_quel_monologo_-299175556/?ref=RH281-62-62-62-

“Words justify the story”. A phrase that would also be interesting or aesthetically pleasing, but now let's ask ourselves what the hell it means. And the truth is that the sentence means nothing:

• history is not justified, it is a sequence of facts.
• it is not clear what it means that the choice of words justifies something.
• still less do we understand what it means that words justify "history".

In this case it is not so much about cowardice, it is about having no arguments: why a joke (funny or not) has the power (or not) to "justify the story" (whatever that means) is not clear, and since the expression "justify the story" means nothing, maybe a joke can do it or maybe not, maybe a plate of spaghetti can do it. The odds are always 50%.

But this type of dialectical junk comes from the fact of having no arguments: when a comedian tells you that banning jokes destroys comedy, or you have winning arguments, thick and logical, or you invent that words justify the story. Even "the convolutions glaze the carpentry" could have been just as well, precisely because that phrase in itself means nothing.

In my disclaimer against politically correct I showed a paradox, showing (absurdly) how tyrannical and violent the claim that the whole society could become adapted to the sensitivity of very few: I expect someone to explain to me why the extermination of every cat on the planet is appropriate to save those who are allergic to cat hair. And I want to see structure and content.

In the same way, going to words, I want to know why it is appropriate to ask for the disappearance of terms from everyone's vocabulary, if not from public discourse, just because a small minority is allergic to that word. And here, too, I expect structure and content.

Instead, the best they can do is "words justify the story". All right. So let's exterminate all the cats on the planet because very few are intolerant to their fur, saying that we do it because “the dialectic carbonitrides the cacophony”. It doesn't mean a chip, but in the absence of better it almost seems like you know the answer. (If the other party doesn't answer you “what the fuck does what you said mean, exactly?”).

The use of empty words in politics, to be thrown against those who have arguments, is not new. When the Catholic says same-sex marriage destroys the traditional family, what the hell is he talking about? Are there heterosexual families that got divorced because two lesbians got married on the landing downstairs? What the hell phenomenon are we talking about? Boyfriends who say to each other "no, dear I'm not marrying you at all: look, in Avellino there is a gay man who married his classmate".

This is a phrase that seems to describe a phenomenon, "A acts on B", where A is gay marriage, B is the traditional family, and "acts" means "destroys". But let's get out of grammar and ask ourselves: what the hell phenomenon are we talking about, exactly? How many heterosexual Romans got divorced because two men got married in Padua? What the hell does this phrase mean? What REAL phenomenon does it indicate? How many heterosexuals have NOT married their partner because two lesbians have adopted a child in Bolzano?

Politics today has WORDS, but NOT CONTENT. IT HAS PHRASES, but NOT ARGUMENTS.

And this is why I have always insisted that political philosophy is now a branch of aesthetic philosophy. Their words mean nothing, they mean nothing, they describe nothing. They fill the space: whoever listens to these people is just wasting time waiting for death.

Politicians, politicians and the like try only to put words one after the other, without asking themselves if the sentences thus obtained mean anything, if they refer to reality, if they have a logical structure. They just throw words at you that don't mean anything.

Because their thoughts have no content, no structure, no arguments.

They only have words.