cptgaio

yes, but she did not express herself regarding the book...

@Alessio: I just saw your second comment, don't worry, I was discussing, not polemicizing. Regarding your statement "because I can tolerate Fallaci's hatred towards the Arab world and I cannot tolerate the love/hate of a sexual executioner?" I can only respond that you are not obligated to tolerate anything, but not tolerating does not mean disrespecting a deceased person. You might argue that Hitler is also dead but doesn't deserve respect anyway, and I agree, but you will admit that there are abyssal differences; they cannot be put on the same level: as far as I know (but correct me if I'm wrong), Fallaci never theorized "final solutions" against the Arab people; she expressed (debatable) opinions about a supposed loss of European (or Western in a broad sense) identity to the detriment of Islamism. Now I also disagree, but Fallaci maintained a journalistic-political tone, albeit polemical, and even here she did not speak of (and if I'm wrong, please tell me) military reactions or other types against them, and the correct way to address this is certainly not the approach of Guzzanti, who mocked her cancer (she did) or other aberrations but rather in the same journalistic-political manner, responding to arguments with other arguments. Instead, this opportunity was lost because there was a division into factions where both sides used it as an excuse to unload grievances that had been brewing for years. I believe in dialogue, not with everyone obviously (I've given examples), but I don't believe that Fallaci fell into the category of thugs or genocide planners as some want to make us believe.

Ale, my friend (without irony), I understood that it’s just an excuse to talk; being called an idiot three or four times in a row is still pretty unpleasant, right? :-D

@Psychi: clarified, I didn't mean to insinuate anything about you, it was just that in response to a question (quite precise, you'll agree) I wanted to provide an equally precise answer regarding my "position" and "unfortunately" you were the one who asked me.

Ale’: read the comment above in a friendly way; I'm not saying that someday someone will come to harm you, but just that you might be disappointed by many things you strongly believe in. I expressed myself a bit poorly, I guess ;-)

Another dangerous discussion, Alessio: you know very well which side I’m on in certain topics, maybe not in this one (and I’ll tell you: for me, Fallaci wrote well, she was a great war and investigative journalist, but unfortunately, in the last part of her life, she was struck by a terrible illness, which forced her to "batter cassa" in order to seek treatment, albeit with opinions I completely disagree with) but in many others, I do (and I won't give examples because you know them). You know very well, for example, that (using a simple example so we don’t risk misunderstanding each other) I have a strong dislike for your musical tastes; however, you have the flaw of thinking (and for anyone who thinks differently from you) that this happens because my tastes are not the same, but because I am ignorant (and we know you think this because with one of your fakes, before it was caught, you even said it to me in one of my reviews) in either a good or bad sense, I don't know, but ignorant. The point is that even if I told you, "Look, I know those records very well; they just suck, in my opinion," you would react impulsively, and the conversation would go to hell. The point is that on many other discussions, I think like you, and do you think it’s worth risking a nice relationship over a Melvins or Tori Amos record? And this holds true, albeit differently, with other users as well. It’s called diplomacy because unfortunately, you can’t always agree on everything. Also, I’ll make an objection here (clarifying that it was a hypothesis; I even wrote that I don’t think you are stupid... more than that) and right away your tone towards me changed and became more provocative. You’re too impulsive, Alessio; here, you can afford to be that way, but life is often harsh on the overly impulsive: the example of the executioner was for that reason (just an example; I wasn’t insinuating anything). And anyway, don’t worry; if you look at my comments, you’ll see that I’ve defended myself and taken a stand with certain elements, yes. Bye.

@Editors: mmm, this time I’m sure I wrote it directly on the DeB page, and the titles of the paragraphs that were all in bold and quite distinct from the previous and/or next ones have "disappeared." Are you sure there’s not a problem with the arrival of reviews since the site has "evolved"? Maybe it’s just a technical issue (I see there are other reviews with similar problems) because seriously, I didn’t send it this way, I wrote it directly. Sorry for the inconvenience!

@Alessio: mmm, your argument is risky. You authorize anyone to think the same thing about you, I imagine you understand that. I'm not calling you stupid, of course, but following your reasoning, then I would be authorized to roast you because to me, the argument in post 34 is very stupid. It's not that you can always be in the dominant position or the role of the executioner, see it however you like.
@Psycho: I wrote that there are things that should not be respected (I didn't list them because they seemed clear), do you want me to list them: racial hatred, xenophobia, pedophilia, violence against women, etc., etc. and you're also making a dangerous argument and confusing things: going around this site offending people isn't being nice. Not calling some reviewer or commentator ignorant (in the crass sense of the term) doesn't mean tolerating them but ignoring them because sooner or later they will die out on their own. Don't create one or two fake accounts and flood the place with a bunch of lame and/or vulgar and/or offensive jokes just because the music (or cinema or literature) presented isn't cool enough for me, that doesn't mean I lack character or that I live in ignorance (in the literal sense of the term) but just that maybe I find the attitude quite childish (even though I see that certain characters here are considered heroes...) I hope I’ve been clear. Generally speaking, if you consider all this being nice, we probably have different standards but I'm proud to be so at this point...

And call me a moralizer if you like, but this thing allows me to live well; I don't know if all this hatred (the legendary Edika comes to mind...) allows you to do the same...

Bah, the issue is simple: wishing death upon someone or hoping that books are burned along with those who read them is quite straightforward, especially on a particular site like this, where you can say (almost) anything. The problem lies in the reverse: those who make such statements often don't consider that sooner or later, they themselves might have to endure them. From disrespect to wishes of death, I would like to see how they would react if they were on the receiving end, and if they wouldn’t feel at least a little offended. And when it comes to the statement, and I quote, not to spark a debate but simply because it’s written, "to respect Fallaci as one would anything else, for simple correctness and the 'principle of bias' is a mistake," then in their case it would become an abuse. It’s fairly easy and trivial to ask others for respect but to think that giving it to others is something based on bias rather than an act of civility is misguided. Of course, there are things that shouldn’t be respected even in civilized society (I won’t list them because it seems obvious), but come on, it’s not about Nazism; it’s a matter of ethics, pure and simple. Certain things shouldn't even be conceived because otherwise, we would truly lower ourselves to the level of those we despise. Empathy, folks, empathy.