Tuesday, October 19

Manuel Jabois: Who are you going to believe tomorrow | Opinion


Miguel Bosé during the interview on the program 'Lo de Évole'.
Miguel Bosé during the interview on the program ‘Lo de Évole’.Atresmedia

In recent weeks, three people have publicly addressed issues of different gravity. His story has been surrounded by equally different circumstances. A woman said on television that she had been abused by her ex-husband. A soccer player left the field during a match because he said that a rival had used a racist insult against him. A singer recounted his prolonged drug use in an interview. The first is an accusation of a crime that concerns the courts. The second is the responsibility of the governing body of Spanish football. The third, if you want to enter ex officio, it will be from the official camel school in the residential area where the singer lives.

Either we believe these testimonials or we do not. We have believed the singer in the majority because he had no reason to lie: it is a confession that hurts him, even more so when he did not use it to excuse any behavior or claim compassion as a victim, something that is appreciated. On the other two testimonies there has been a division of opinions, although objectively the player’s reaction to the alleged racist insult is irrational if it was a lie: he leaves the field, his team almost runs out of three points for supporting him and he is replaced; If he had invented it, it would be a meaningless invention, not impossible. The governing body has confirmed the existence of the insult, but has clarified that it does not come from the footballer accused by the victim, but by another. “A South American”, specifically; the organism is presided over by that kind of people who, to close one melon, open four.

“A black they call a shitty nigger? A man abusing a woman? What a novelty ”. These reflections weigh when it comes to believing or not believing, because when it comes to believing someone everything weighs, such as the agitated breathing during the confession, their crying or their resentment, if they have it. It has always been like this. For example, the woman who accuses of abuse has had her credibility undermined by advertising it on a program for which she has been paid. Does that mean he’s lying? No. It can be thought that the woman, through other resources, could earn money from television by telling other less painful things in her life. Does that mean he’s telling the truth? No. There is more, and it is not little: the courts found no evidence of a crime against her ex-husband when she denounced the abuse. That does not mean that there was no crime, nor that we have to believe it, but that we must abide by it.

We have the right to believe and not believe, especially when it is served as a show, but the truth is not the result of a competition between one another. We spend our lives deciding between believing and not believing all the time, most of it about things so absurd that we just believe them. If a friend tells us that her roommate is stealing from her, we take into account that she is our friend, that her roommate has stolen other times, that our friend is nervous and cries and we believe her, or we believe her regardless nothing, or we don’t believe her because she is our friend and we love her just as she is, with her tricks. So with our family, with our friends or with third parties who tell us something and we assess whether They gain or lose something by telling it, why they accuse and whom, how they accuse it and at what moment. Would the Spanish policies and politicians who took the abuse for granted, would they have done so if the accused was their son or father? We can believe yes or no, but that does not mean anything, nor should it mean anything that they have believed the testimony; I have also believed it and that does not make it true, nor can I write as if it were.

What we create should not matter to anyone out there, or have any weight, or condition anything, and yet it is more important than ever: our faith is contagious. That is why later there are people believing the first charlatan who stops him on the street but does not believe in certified and experienced vaccines in millions of people, in the same way that there are singers consuming whatever it is, as long as it is toxic, minus what is He has analyzed and saves his life: that is no longer true, we could go that far.


elpais.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share