Another scandal flared up on the Web, which perfectly characterizes the polarization of Russian society: the famous Russian comedian Semyon Slepakov published a poem (since it contains profanity, we cannot quote it, but it is easy to find it on the Web), in which he sharply spoke about Navalny's supporters, who, from his point of view, allowed themselves "extra" during the protest actions. True, the same supporters can, in turn, point out to Slepakov that the state has allowed itself too much excess in relation to Navalny. And hardly anyone here will convince anyone. And nevertheless, this has been discussed for the second day with foaming at the mouth on social networks.
Blogger Lena Miro believes that “for once Semyon wrote well, but he was immediately grossed out by his yesterday's admirers: “I hope all your family dies, you bastard”, those who did not become a shareholder of Gazprom wish Slepakov.
As you can see, the crowd did not stop there. Threats poured from dirty mouths, interspersed with curses to die of cancer.
What can I say to this?
Yes, everything is fine. The cattle is indignant only in one case: when you tell them the truth.
Tell them the truth - they are turned away. I say this as an expert in truth.
Intolerance to the opinions of others is a distinctive feature of soggy cattle. They are ready to tear you apart in a crowd, but as soon as you begin to argue with them on the facts, only curses fly in response.
In their paradigm, there is only their opinion. For any excellent - hang in the squares. Good people, really. Semyon, I advise you not to be nervous. Ideally, of course, I would file a statement with the police in order to look cleanly into the slick faces of those who wrote curses to you. Do not punish, do not plant, but just put it opposite and see how they themselves piss themselves out of fear. Internet fighters for good. However, life itself will punish them: they will die in leaky underpants, because there is no money for new money, and they do not know how to work..."
For his part, the social psychologist Alexey Roshchin is not as straightforward as Miro. He believes that Slepakov is both talented and witty, and deservedly popular with the Russian plebs, not inferior in any way to Navalny in this sense. And the laws of social psychology are guilty of persecuting him, but simply the flocks: “Slepakov, of course, set himself up. Although he did nothing at all - he only wrote a critical poem in his usual manner, in which, for a change, he decided to kick slightly not Gazprom and the oligarchs, but, on the contrary, the participants of the "protest marches" on January 23 in Moscow, and even then not all, but those who on that day slightly beat a certain activist who tried to wave an anti-navalny poster right in the crowd of protesters. Actually, already from this description one can understand that he was either a suicide or a provocateur; However, Semyon did not like such an aggressive attitude towards the person who came to the rally - he saw in this a dangerous attempt on freedom of speech and the seeds of intolerance to other people's opinions, which, in his opinion, should not be among the fighters for "Beautiful Russia of the Future." Along the way, he recalled the "freedom fighters" and some other not quite politically correct things.
The claims, in general, cannot be called unfounded or somehow defamatory; in theory, a poet is a poet, in order to feel subtly and feel someone else's pain - even if it is the pain of a "guy from the traffic police", that is, a "dog of the regime."
But then it began! The start of the campaign, apparently, was given directly by Yulia Navalnaya - she commented on "Slepakov's fresh song" (and all of Slepakov's new songs for many years have been an event in the entire huge audience that loves "youth humor") with the words "Well, Slepakov after all does not lose hope of becoming a shareholder in Gazprom".
(...) In fact, we just got out of the habit of really mass social and political movements... and after all, mass movements that really go "from below", and do not line up from above, can only be like that. Simply because the "grassroots movements" usually attract most people of a special psychological make-up - people who love and want to flock around some strong and confident leader. This, by the way, is neither good nor bad - it just is.
To many people it is warmer, calmer and safer to feel like in a flock, and not alone in the wind. The problem is that not everyone manages to find a suitable flock (and such a person sometimes suffers from anguish all his life, not knowing what he wants). Many find such a "flock" in the state, becoming zealous and devoted "statists"; but it often happens that the state is not satisfied with something, and the person does not want to associate himself with it.
I call this type "dog-man". Again, these are not necessarily bad people. The dog-man can be a goon, but this is completely optional. In general, many positive qualities are inherent in such: devotion, loyalty, fearlessness. The only sad thing is that a dog-man is often looking for himself not just a leader, but downright a master, even a Master. And this means that the "owner", what good, can direct the energy of the dog-man to evil - and he, in an impulse to prove his loyalty, will not even understand this.
So Slepakov simply raised a flock against himself - perhaps deliberately. Naturally, she began to bark at him in every possible way, gradually entering into a rage (as his predecessor Vysotsky sang - "the dogs bark until they vomit"). The more massive the movement - the more massive will be such "storms". Our business is complicated only by the fact that the real LOW movement in Russia, it turns out, is one thing today - therefore, I bark at Slepakov, there is simply nothing to oppose.
Perhaps here we also find the motivation of Slepakov himself - WHY did he do it? I do not exclude that this was a kind of "valiant test": blinded by the crowded halls at his concerts, Slepakov, perhaps secretly convinced that his fans (and there are many of them!) Are also a kind of "dogs" who, in the case which, they will always protect, always shut up all opponents... "Network analyst Anatoly Nesmiyan blames the crowd's" black and white "thinking for everything:
“The freedom-loving public, going to the barricades, was deeply offended by Semyon Slepakov, who wrote a poem on 23 January. Somehow he was not too enthusiastic about the impulse of the masses.
The public's problem is understandable: she wrote Slepakov into her “own” on the basis that he speaks of the authorities without the slightest reverence. So he is "his". The fact that Slepakov could relate and speak about the public in the same way, somehow did not occur to her. Black-and-white thinking and monochrome outlook on life are always suspicious of shades, trying to calibrate them right there in the "friend or foe" system. Although life is always more complicated than black and white photography.
The logic of the public is no different from the value system of the postman Pechkin (from the popular Russian cartoon - noted by the editor): "...And you, boy, whose you are? Where did you come from to our village? - I am nobody's, I am a boy myself. My own. - It does not happen like that, children can't be theirselves. Children must be somebody's..."
It's always like this: you watch a cartoon, and it suddenly turns out to be a documentary tape.
And journalist Vladimir Demchikov does not see anything extraordinary in this scandal, because in the end, the much more talented Zhvanetsky also flirted with the authorities:
“Here and there in the tape they are discussing Slepakov's “bad” poem. Now a friend on the phone also said something about him to me.
I do not really understand the reason for the indignation. Slepakov is not a poet and never was - he is a comedian, KVNschik (a memeber of the Club of the cheerful and sharp-witted - noted by the editor), his working genre is a joke. Everything that he did before and that someone admired there was so-so, rather average. Such normal KVN texts. Well, yes, the person fit into the agenda, well done, he worked quickly, but that's all.
A normal showman, like Galustyan, they say, is a good businessman - what's the problem with his new verse? Is it worse than the old ones? - yes the same, no worse. As he was a comedian, so he remained so. Well, he waved a little, played along with the propaganda - and his much more talented colleagues (and even the same Zhvanetsky) were more elegant and sophisticated, but they also maneuvered around the bosses and his wishes. So everything is fine, the regiment of talents has not disappeared, the regiment of scum has not arrived. as there were comedians, so many remain..."
Slepakov himself, following that poem, published a new one that clarifies his position: