Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

[Giorgio Menon <giorgio.menon(at)pd.infn.it>]

Antonio Rossin wrote:

> (a)
> Please, Giorgio, do not baffle me. It has you who wrote here above:
>
> > We could have done it, but we didn't.  Our fault, no?


Sorry that you haven't understood my irony, Antonio.

-------------------------------------------------------

> (a)
> Which fault was you referring to?  As it is this fault, which I'm
> referring to.  To the extent that the fault is ours, we are guilty.
> Clearly, that of owning no media cannot be considered our fault:
> but we shall have failed somewhere, and keep steadily on repeting
> the same fault: don't you think so?


Here's my point: no one can be blame if the society where s/he lives is
structured in a arguable way. Stratified societies will ALWAYS carry
discriminations, no matter if we call them democracies, dictatorships,
oligarchies, monarchies. Yet societies are made of several individuals:
if they find their lifestyle is not so fair they can decide to change,
and i agree with you that they have the power to change. Unfortunately
here come the SUVs. Multinationals don't want to share their profits and
benefits with others and, in order to keep the system stable and
reliable, they make us THINK we can switch profile and gain access to
their wealth. How? Buying a SUV. That simple. Communication, as i said
before, is meant to convince and the few who own and have full access to
the media can spread their opinions and make whatever they like
plausable (if not fashionable). Think about the French and Russian
revolutions: they menaged to change the head of the pyramid only, not to
change the system flattening the stratifications. In facts just a few
years later new dictators came up. People were really dazed and
confused: they had changed the system but the new system was only partly
different from the old. How could that have happened? Robespierre,
Stalin, Napoleon were really different from Louis XVI or Nicholas II?
I keep saying that the fight is too biased to be fair. How can we
communicate our belief that oil is going to end soon and bicycle is a
viable way to commute for common people? I know it, you know it and,
likely, anyone in this ng knows it. Should we force others to adopt our
viewpoint? I don't think it would be fair. Can we buy TV and media room
to let people know our ideas? I'm sure we don't have enough money to do
it. Multinationals do it because they get lots of money out of ads by
increasing their sellings, but we would get no money at all from such
ads because we don't sell anything.
Are we responsible for what the whole world does? No, Antonio, i don't
think we are: as long as we obey to our conscience and we don't oblige
people i don't think we are guilty of mankind's choices. We know it, we
say it, we make choices that respect what our conscience suggests us.
That's it.

------------------------------------------------------

> (a)
> Better we speak of recoverable faults -- if any -- that may be relevant
> for recovering our (failed) democracy.
>
> Otherwise we are crying only, no way out,  and our speaking is useless.
>
> Ciao,
>
> antonio


In a sense all we have said and done so far has been useless. And
yourself wrote it when you complained about the "uselessness" (i can't
find any better word, sorry if this sounds too tough) of this ng and
decided not to finance it anymore.
Am i missing something maybe?

Regards

Giorgio

PS  I don't consider useless speaking to you all. In this microsystem it
may be useful, but i doubt it may be of any use for common people,
biased as they are by higher casts.