“’Congratulations’ to those (well-known, well-known, lesser-known, unknown and false names) who helped me achieve this unenviable result. Dear … (and many others), do not be ashamed even a little
“. A short but exhaustive tweet, published by Vitalba Azzollini , despite herself among the most hated women on Twitter, opens again the debate on online hatred which, according to what emerged from the 2021 Map of intolerance edited by the Vox Rights Observatory, almost affects the 44% of women.
Azzollini and columnist of Domani, jurist and official at an independent supervisory authority as well as author of articles and contributions on legal matters for the Bruno Leoni Institute (including two books “The public is always right
Present and Future of Cultural Policies “and” We and the State. We are still subjects
“) and in this all negative ranking it is not alone: ​​politicians, influencers, singers and journalists have been privileged recipients of this type of message, which often also have a name and a surname.
Vitalba Azzollini You are talking about well-known, very well-known people who have helped you achieve this result. Who it refers
to The tweets to which I refer are public, and have also seen the participation of a series of well-known personalities belonging to the world of medicine, politics and even gravitating to the government. What kind of attacks are we talking about
It is always about Covid issues. I have never dealt with medicine, I strictly adhere to my area of ​​expertise, which is the law. These people instead attacked me, it is not clear even on what basis, since none of them deal with law. Moreover, my arguments in general are not questioned by other jurists, we can agree or not, but the solidity of the arguments remains. Here, the method followed instead by these people was singular, almost more an attack on the person than on the arguments used. These were demeaning, “ad hominem”, personal attacks. But it didn’t start out of nowhere. What triggered it, in his personal experience
Whatever I write and always very clearly and directly. As they say, I put my face to it, and I have very clear positions. Probably this mainly disturbs certain narratives. The only reason why I can think of having been the object of attacks by these people is precisely to disturb narratives, which in some of my tweets I have dismantled, in terms of consistency. According to the report, online hate mainly affects women (43.70%). How much does the request by women for greater recognition in the workplace, but not only, influence this hatred
It is not just a problem of being a “woman”. I think at this moment what bothers most people are free from any pattern. In a phase of strong polarization, which has been accentuating with the arrival of Covid, free voices are annoying, those that cannot be traced back to any pre-established category, for example pro-government-against-government. I try to be impartial, I am not on one side or the other, although I am clearly pro vax. Likewise, I really appreciate the Prime Minister, but when I see some inconsistencies in the government’s measures, even in a government that still works well, I would like to point them out.
This is what is disturbing. The fact that limits, risks, the impact of certain measures are highlighted instead of applauding everything, as the people on the line do. The polarization has produced this unfortunate consequence. Either yes and on one side or yes and the other: for example, it is not allowed to be in favor of vaccines and in any case to say that certain vaccination measures may be inconsistent or not sufficiently effective. It is possible to estimate the prime minister and in any case highlight some limits of his action. Being a woman probably makes all of this even more intolerable. Because
In the narrative, and we speak once again of narratives, historically the woman does not “make war”. The fight, the ring, the combat field are considered exclusively male prerogatives. In my case the hatred was amplified on the one hand by the fact that I shirked myself from belonging to any part and therefore was targeted by both sides, depending on what I was saying. Also, I fear it disturbed that I am a non-political woman and that she simply fights for the ideas she believes in. Among the most hated women there are also Giorgia Meloni and Myrta Merlino. There is a difference with them
Giorgia Meloni is involved in politics, so it is obvious that she fights in her battlefield, which she may like or not, but she is there; a TV presenter must conquer the audience, have a prize in terms of ratings. For my part, it annoys you that I fight for the ideas I believe in with no return. She has a hard time understanding why I do this, and this seems to confuse many. In recent months there has been a lot of talk about the Zan bill which proposed new types of hate crime. He thinks that his approval could also have an effect on hatred of women
I think not. Among other things, in this regard, since I was in favor of this provision, I spent really a lot of time dismantling all the accusations that were made against the bill and this has given me further hate manifestations on the net, precisely from those who they said there was no need to fight hate online, one of the many paradoxes. But no, I don’t think it would have helped. As a jurist, he thinks that the law can and should go where culture does not reach
I am and I was in favor of the Zan bill because I believe that certain people, their way of being and feeling, must also find recognition through the texts of the law and that text of the law enhanced them. However, I do not believe that the culture of people can be changed with the law and sanctions.
Going beyond the law, the mechanisms of social networks such as the removal of content that incite hatred can be a useful tool. network, however they can be moved from online to offline. This is why I say that it is a question of culture, and it is a question that is not simply fought on the net or with mechanisms that operate only on the net, but in a deeper way. How is it possible to act, according to his experience
As for me – and this and another of the things that probably bothered me – I have always adopted the method of transparency. When I was attacked, I made the attack, the underlying mechanism, and the person attacking me transparent. This was to make sure that the other people, the Twitter audience, could realize between the two actors on the stage, that is to say the insultor and I, the difference in arguments and method. Who supported an idea and who instead demeaned it with insults, personal attacks. I thought that in this way, by putting the cards on the table, I could make the reader understand which side to be on. If I had wanted to denounce my insulters I could have done it, but I believe that beyond the personal punishment – which can also be opportune – it is much more useful to try to make people understand what is happening. I put everything on the table, and then you choose which side to take.

Previous articleNew Year’s Eve 2022 in Paris: Tips, Events and Offers
Next articleBeware of this WhatsApp message: Amazon does not send gifts for its anniversary