telespallabob

DeRank : 11,31 • DeAge™ : 6312 days

Voto:
Here they are, here they are. Also from this album. Welcome to Debaser.
Voto:
I feel like a white fly when reading reviews and comments. I consider myself someone who has never loved foreign-centric reasoning and the rants about how we are musically inferior (and necessarily derivative). This leads me to always pay attention to things that come from nearby, without giving up on the many interesting things that can emerge from Italy. I think Julie's Haircut is a good band, but they don't fully engage me. I haven't listened to their latest one yet.
Voto:
"I reaffirm that not appreciating Saviano certainly does not mean supporting the mafia...", there is a word for what you are describing: omertà. I am convinced that you are not omertosi, but by denigrating someone who denounces the state of affairs, you place yourselves in a position of moral disadvantage. This is undeniable. @Axel, the desire to escape stems from a discomfort, a definitive disappointment with a state of affairs that has remained unchanged for many years. It is resignation that overtakes anger and devours hope. Not for this reason does one stop loving their country. It makes my bile rise because in such a situation (the media wave surrounding Gomorra), instead of targeting the many opportunists behind it, one lashes out at Saviano, who in all this is on the front line: when he writes the book, when he candidly declares that he wrote it, when he takes responsibility for his words, when he perseveres in the work of denunciation despite everything. This is what you have done. If instead you had complained about the fact that it took a 28-year-old boy, denied the chance to live, to bring these issues to the public's attention (and often we talk about the "Segreto di Pulcinella"), you would have found me on the same side of the barricade. However, I cannot remain silent when I read that Saviano is an opportunist who has gained from all this. We should be upset with the general negativity of things, and yet when a positive exception arises, a whole series of excuses are sought to cast it in a bad light. The same thing was done with Leonardo Vitale. Take a moment to think about this.
Voto:
I thank those who participated. @Acqualife, in my opinion, they are more sophisticated than the Galliano. It's a definitely richer musical style. I couldn't say what Ghemison means.
Voto:
You make me come down with bile, I’m referring to Axel and Eletto. Let's start by listing their arguments from my last comment. "No one forced Saviano to talk about the facts of the Camorra," instead he has an obligation: the journalistic duty. I repeat, he could have done like 99.9 percent of Italian "journalists," stuffing us with empty words, but instead he told us news of shocking gravity. It’s an obligation that comes from the profession he chose; it’s a moral obligation. "You don't want to live under escort? Fine, publish the book and retreat to an atoll in Fiji..." You know what this is called? Throwing the stone and withdrawing the hand. He could have easily done that, shamelessly denying it, but instead he took responsibility for his words, carrying them forward and telling them in person around the world. "You want to put your name on it? Don't complain everywhere that you are forced to live under escort, and keep the accusations from those who say that your status as a 'dead man walking' built the success of your book, your career, and made you money." The success of Gomorra is not due to the fact that they gave him an escort. It is due to the fact that people passed the book around and its content spread. Not surprisingly, the wiretaps made on the Casalesi show that their concern was the book's editorial success, which is why they wanted to kill Saviano (using the same method as Capaci). From those threats came the escort. "In the sense that Saviano could have perfectly well published the book and then disappeared from circulation, which would also be fine, but after complaining about his condition, he fuels it negatively by participating in conferences, seminars, broadcasts." Does that seem normal to you? One writes reality, must live under escort for it, and accept it passively? Let’s not joke. "To me, people who insult their own country disgust me as much as a mafioso... if you don’t love your nation, you are not ready to fight to improve it." Look, admitting the problems that exist doesn’t mean insulting your country. The insult, if anything, is the opposite: seeing the problems and saying “everything is fine here, it will pass. Those who speak belong to the category of universal catastrophists.” Admitting problems and trying to improve them is the greatest demonstration of affection. And it’s not something rhetorical or nationalistic, as some people would like us to impose the idea of a great homeland, of national spirit, and so forth. "I understand that it's an extreme and reductive thought, but I see it this way..." I should use another word for your thought, but it's not fair to say it. My astonishment remains behind all this, along with a reflection related to a man, Leonardo Vitale. He detailed the entire organization of Cosa Nostra in an extremely detailed manner, anticipating by 10 years the legendary revelations of Buscetta to Falcone. Public opinion and Vitale's compatriots did not reason about the revelations made, about the words, but about the character and said that he was seeking notoriety. I leave the rest of the reasoning to you.
Voto:
@Grass, you're mistaken about the last sentence. Saviano is already dead, and that type of death is far worse than one that can come from a gun or kilos of explosives: it’s a moral death, the offspring of sensationalism, from a society that has already passed its judgment on the person because gossip must be made and bias must prevail. There is no belief in good faith or a sense of duty, no. In Italy, everyone does it for their dirty comforts: money, fame, television appearances. I’m really fed up; I’m tired of hearing certain things. He was killed by a country that is good at moralizing in front of a television or behind a newspaper, reading articles that describe a reality that does not belong to them. What does it mean for them? For people they don’t know, who have never lived firsthand or heard stories from those who had to confront such a reality? Anyway, they are "free" and "calm," far removed from Casal di Principe (and many other cities could be named without issue) and they smile at the shit that is slowly overwhelming them (and perhaps is already overwhelming them). That’s my indignation, my outrage, and do you know what makes me angrier than anything else? That all this anger I feel is pointless, it doesn't shake consciences, it doesn’t improve the situation. They are words thrown to the wind. It’s the worst defeat, it’s the same defeat as Saviano’s. Defeated because people read his books and think: "Wow, this Saviano is clever. He writes about things everyone knows, so he becomes famous and makes billions." Instead, they should think: "This is chilling. How disgusting. Thankfully, someone isn’t keeping these things silent."
Voto:
"Why does Italy take off its hat in front of someone who has fought the battle in front of a computer and on paper?" Because we are in Italy and certain things are known but not said. So making them public is a matter of courage and praise; it means a lot. He could have just quietly remained silent and observed reality up close without questioning himself; he lifts the lid of a toxic box, aware that everyone knows what it is, but until the definitive acknowledgment arrives, they shamelessly deny it. This is what journalism is, what Saviano does, and for such things, which you denigrate (I quoted that phrase on purpose), many have died. I’ll mention just one name: Beppe Alfano, a journalist to whom we owe our gratitude. And there could be other names, of journalists less well-known than Saviano, who continue to recount the horrors of the mafias while living under police protection (I’m referring, for example, to reporter Lirio Abbate). He is "mythologized" (I use this ugly word to adapt to your language) because real journalism is the exception and not the rule. If all journalists did their job (that is, seek the news and tell the reality, instead of hanging around the anteroom of Montecitorio and reporting back to their editors the same lines from various Capezzone, Finocchiaro, and so on), he would simply be doing his duty. And that's it. Instead, he’s a hero, and in this shitty country, instead of reflecting on the fact that those who perform their job are the exception, the odd ones, we engage in the exercise of Solon, criticizing him because "he rides his own image." Where do we want to go with this attitude? By doing so, the mafias live one more day when, with our anger, they could start losing pieces and being defeated more and more each day. It seems to me that reasoning like this is too difficult, unfortunately, I’m not able to be a moralist.
Voto:
Welcome to Debaser. I don't know this gentleman, but the analysis seems good; I'll see if I can find something.
Voto:
Allow me, but it takes courage to think about the "Saviano character," let alone talk about it. It’s actually the thought that is chilling. Do we realize this? Saviano tells a story, with great journalistic skill, about a context that might seem so distant yet is closer than one might think. I honestly don't care why people buy "Gomorra"; I’m pleased to think that people read it and become aware of its content, that they can reflect and draw conclusions. Such merit surpasses any "media exploitation" that Saviano could have made of himself and his work. It’s not fair to pontificate about certain people.
Voto:
I'll be brief: the other night, public service was done. And that's no small feat these days.