Of hate speech and crazy people with a desire for blood

When he was 11 years old, one morning on January 1, 1994, a pitched battle of glass bottles took place. The belligerents: the youth of the Cardenal Samoré complex vs. those of the Nágera complex. Location: Escalada Avenue, with me present. Not step over.

At 16, I got caught up in a drive-by shooting. Two gangs that were disputing who knows what, they ran with cars to the shots. I was in the street. Some other wounded, no dead.

Shortly after, another shooting occurred with half a neighborhood in the street. One died. They all fell into jail because the police had the idea of ​​going to gossip at the wake.

At 17 years old, at midday, this asshole who writes descended from an intern on line 36 with the school uniform, the backpack on his shoulder and, as befits his age, gawking. I was grounded by the unmistakable rumble of tires and froze as police and two men shot the shit out of each other. One of the gray hairs yelled at me in the middle of the shooting “rajá to your house”. I think I didn’t feel my legs.

I don’t remember when they tried to cut my neck with broken glass to steal my cell phone in a formation in Belgrano Norte, but I was already a big idiot. Cut, they cut. Shallow, but they tried. File cover? Simple robbery. Archived.

If I remember correctly, the last time I stood in the middle of a firefight I had no way to move. Vélez Sarsfield Avenue and the tracks, stopped traffic, me on top of a car, in the middle of the afternoon. Two patrol cars ran to a vehicle from which they responded to the shots. One on the sidewalk, others on the opposite side. Drivers caught in the middle. If it wasn’t five years ago, he hits the stick.

What I narrate above is nothing more than a series of scenes to which more than one is accustomed. It may seem like a lot to read it all together, but those events occurred throughout my thirty-ten years of life. And none had anything to do with my work.

But they don’t get an idea of ​​how wild everything was from 2014. Shady things that were more scary to denounce and anyone who worked during those years was a victim or had a writing colleague who suffered a criminal act totally linked to the exercise of job. Who fostered that climate? Are there culprits? In other words: if government groups set up a kermesse to shoot saliva squirts at images of journalists, could that lead to a madman starting to threaten or hit journalists?

In 2016 I made a complaint about death threats. It wasn’t just “feeling intimidated”, but the phrase “you’re going to appear in a ditch” didn’t leave me much room for interpretation. When I came back from making the complaint, I had an email that said “so you made the complaint, bitch”. I think they put a police slogan and time later, as appropriate, the file was filed.

I still got it cheap. Imagine that, if not even my dog ​​recognizes me when I enter the house, what can happen to the great researchers of this beautiful profession.

One time, Nicolás Wiñazki had to ask for help to open the car: it had been wrapped in barbed wire. He was also in personal custody for a long time, the kind of surveillance that doesn’t let you go to the bathroom alone. His sin from him? Having found a twine washing route.

And the examples repeat themselves towards infinity and beyond.

But now that even the head of the Inadi proposes to “regulate hate speech” –of the opposition– instead of initiating a file for official stigmatizing communication towards sectors as defined as they are broad, I want someone to be encouraged to ask at a conference what fuck does an official understand by “hate speech” and what he means by “media, justice and politics.” Let them give names, make complaints and move within the republican and democratic framework that they proclaim so much.

More than anything because, until now, I only see goons of the word who think that we forgot what 678 was and its healthy habit of dedicating an hour a day to point out who had to do shit and give the arguments to use.

Who defines what hate speech is when committing an offense by a third party? Government? Where? Guazzorra? Who popularized the “I hate you, I hate you and everything you represent? Was it me while I grabbed Cabandié by the wicks or was it Luis D’Elía on the most listened to FM in the country when he was interviewed by Fernando Peña?

Who listened to a retiree from Mar del Plata who complained about not being able to buy ten dollars for his grandson to encourage him to save? Who did it for national chain? What did that person expect by saying what he said? Who tore up newspapers at a press conference? I, sir? No sir. Is that a harmony building message? Do you think that did not generate consequences? A few years ago I made a video with the insults received in a couple of days. Just to fuck. Now, if someone attacks me personally, I would be an idiot if I report anyone other than the attacker.

I always said that “if they were guaranteed impunity, there would be a group of crazy people who would kill us all.” They had never made it so clear. I got tired of hearing and reading the same thing a thousand times: “if the bullet came out, today we are in a civil war.” The issue is that even the head of the Federal Investigation Agency spoke of the actions of a “lone wolf.” It’s not understood? Is it necessary to explain it with drawings? Why do they insist on blaming those who did nothing? Why do lawyers with official positions insist on inventing criminal figures that do not exist? And why are we all subjected to derision for having absolutely nothing to do with something that could have happened?

Now there is a suspicion that the detainee did not act alone. They charmed the bride. And even if they belong to an armed organization, we are not all of them, nor the majority, nor half nor a part.

But we still have to listen to the threat of civil war from some, that of “no stone is left unturned” from others. What do they plan to do if there is an effective conviction even though the Presi does not have even half a chance of going to jail?

It is interesting this novelty of whitening that they are dying to go out and hunt those who think differently. It is also interesting that no prosecutor acts ex officio before each one that guaranteed a civil war if the bullet came out. Do you know something we should all know? What organization do you have in mind? Are they just some opas who dream of a bloodbath? Let them go and explain why so much love dressed as a threat.

From what they have heard and read, not only do they not want Cristina to go to jail –something that will never happen even if she is convicted since she turns 70 in February– but there are also people who would not have itching to kill someone they do not like. Or does the repetition of “civil war” refer to a battle of wet paper balls?

Those of us who do not have the ancestral wisdom to theologically adore the Vice President also made the calculation “what would have happened if.” And of course we get the same result. The difference lies in the fact that we take it for granted that the one who begins is some delusional group of the ruling party. And some other delusional group of the ruling party takes the same for granted with respect to them. Who would be the enemy they would face in a civil war? Or do they just threaten to go out and hunt those who think differently? Argentina has experience in that. In fact, the ruling party built an entire epic discourse on that experience.

Obviously I’m not going to generalize, but why doesn’t someone who doesn’t think that put a stop to someone who says those things while complaining about the hatred of others? How much desire for blood can they have? How the hell dare they say that “Peronism does not hate” when they have only literally killed each other for decades? He seemed to mature and only threatened to imprison each other and then go to elections. And now this.

I read them, I listen to them and I see a perverse message of demanding an apology for what a madman did because of the supposed fault of others. It’s as if they punched someone who is hot at home so that he understands that it’s wrong to be violent.

Regarding the excessive reactions on the part of those who are singled out by the ruling party, it is first necessary to differentiate those who have no choice but to bow their heads. And it’s perfect, because between being happy and being right, you always have to choose the first: the one who only wants to be right will be right, and even so, he won’t be happy.

Officials, diplomats, political leaders, say yes like crazy people, that nobody loses anything. They could issue institutional communiqués, but no: you have to make reverse blacklists, spread requests and communiqués to be signed. Whoever does not sign is exposed.

Now, those who were not forced or pressured… with what need? Are they afraid of being screwed by those who are going to screw them anyway?

Even fashion influencers were pissed off because they were not sad or condemned what happened on their networks. People: the bulk of the population is in another. It’s not that he doesn’t get sick of seeing what happened, he just does other things or isn’t interested. Is it a crime?

What happened with Vice is a crime. And like any crime, it is reprehensible. But I don’t even have to take responsibility for what a totally crazy guy does. In fact, those who seek blame in third parties are closer to psychopathy than to any other well-intentioned attitude.

Hate speech? Let’s not fuck around, there is nothing more subjective than saying that something that is not to our liking is hate speech. In 1969, when police arrived at 3301 Waverly Drive in Los Angeles, they found two bodies stabbed to death, just as Sharon Tate and three of her friends had been found the night before. With the blood of the victims, the killers wrote “Helter Skelter” on the refrigerator.

Manson had sat down with his entire band a few days earlier and blasted the song for them. After 4.29 glorious minutes, the delirious man told them “Do you realize what’s happening? Helter Skelter is coming.” Manson even linked the Fab Four to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, just as he had previously raved that Blackbird was a song predicting the rise of blacks against whites.

When testifying, Manson blamed those who provoked the band’s reaction and blamed others for inciting them. Specifically, to John Lennon and Paul McCartney: “Is it a conspiracy that music tells young people to rebel because society destroys everything? Music speaks, but you are too deaf and blind to hear it. It is not my conspiracy nor my music. What do they blame me for? I don’t write those songs, it was The Beatles and what they released. The kids listen to it and understand the subliminal message.”

Lennon replied cautiously: “He’s crazy. What does a song have to do with killing people?”

Only an imbecile or someone very afraid of having to find an honest job would dare to blame Paul McCartney for having written “a song that incites hatred” just because someone said that others killed influenced by what they felt like interpreting that way. song.

Does anyone have at hand a newspaper article signed and published by any means of communication in which it is expressed that Cristina must be killed? Did any politician say that? Did someone literally say “kill Cristina” and sign it? What do I know, too many questions but because there is no other way to process all this delirium. Anyway, it will pass. Like everything in this country. Therefore, dear ones who are under pressure or going through an argument: choose between being happy or being right. Overall, it goes by fast. And as for the fear of what could happen with an eventual conviction: let’s stop paying so much attention that it is all they want in life. Like we don’t have really important things to do.

After all, there was no president in the entire democracy with greater real power than Carlos Saúl and, when he ended up confined in the Quinta de Gostanián, they also organized marches in support of him.

Did something else happen?

Nicholas Lucca

Of hate speech and crazy people with a desire for blood