Ainhoa Alarcón Escalante*
On March 20 of this year, HIJOS denounced through social networks the multiple crimes committed against one of its members by alleged supporters of La Libertad Avanza (LLA). The association Sons and Daughters for Identity and Justice against Forgetfulness and Silence, denounces a political attack, not only because of the signature left by those who carry it out “VLLC” (“Long live freedom, damn”) but, especially, because of the militancy carried out by the victim as a defender of feminism and human rights. The perpetrators themselves make it clear, by telling the victim that this was what happened to her for speaking and clarifying that it was not a robbery; which was true only to a certain extent, since objects related to the association were taken.
The victim suffered sexual abuse by these supposed supporters of Javier Milei. Sexual abuse and rape were crimes that were perpetrated during the last civil-military dictatorship. During this period, according to Villegas, it is estimated that 30% of the victims of state terrorism were women. There was violence against their bodies that was specific, systematic, planned, intentional, and born from gender stereotypes that helped deepen.
If we read the anthropologist Rita Segato we can understand rape and abuse not as a moral crime, but as physical destruction and warlike aggression. Although before the trials of the junta, rape was considered a crime against humanity (and therefore as imprescriptible and not pardonable), this specificity in the sentences of repressors began in 2010. In the 1980s, attention was in demonstrating the illegality of repression by the terrorist State. Later in time, degrees of authorship of the crime were introduced to judge those who committed the violations. It was not until 2010 that the first ruling was achieved where rape was classified as a crime against humanity, within the trials of the last dictatorship. It is then that we are not surprised, although we are frightened, by abuse as a method of torture and coercion.
This event is part of the increasingly numerous attacks that are carried out in the country (can be seen at https://ra-dar.com.ar/). They seek to silence the victim and affect her functioning in tasks related to human rights.
It is a message to the militancy, it seeks fear and disarticulation of those who fight against the violence that La Libertad Avanza, the president and its militants exercise and for which they advocate. They seek to reinstate state violence.
Intimidating messages
The association’s statement puts the message of the abusers: “We did not come to rob you, we came to kill you. “We get paid for this.” They imply that they are paid professionals who premeditated (justice has already confirmed the intelligence made about the victim before committing the crimes) and saw a political justification for their actions in the militancy of the person they attacked.
The criminals left the acronym VLLC painted on the wall of the victim’s home, the way Milei signs her messages. The same interpretation that the association does can be made: the correlation with the government’s speech. The government promotes hatred, incites violence and blames the victims, therefore it can be thought of as part of the culprits of the events. Abuelas said “Hate speech is the breeding ground for violent actions and crimes.” Government discourse is where violence is born, grows and in the name of which it is carried out.
Milei’s speech is reflected in the responses he gave to the attack. In the networks and in the discourse that he generated before and during his campaign, the president is violent and does not take responsibility for it. According to the Digital Development Institute of Latin America and the Caribbean (IDDLAC), Milei amplifies the denialist discourse: denying, relativizing, frivolizing and minimizing crimes against humanity. This is seen with greater scope when social networks falter in their work of moderating and respecting the agreements that they themselves establish. When it occurs on networks, the discourse appears to have less weight but has a greater reach, which facilitates its radicalization and the misunderstanding of those who generate it. Milei really talks to citizens, to his activists and to his voters through the networks; Even her interventions in traditional media tend to go viral on networks like Tik Tok, Instagram or Twitter.
The “troll” president
The phenomenon of the “troll president” is being experienced. The successful troll stirs emotions and opinions, moves the conversation and knows how to shock and harangue at the right moments. On the other hand, the president’s speech has a specific place; the place of his word changes, the responsibility and weight of his word changes, as well as his visibility.
And this works like this no matter how much Milei wants to avoid it – in the description of his Twitter account he continued to only put economist after taking office as president. And although it gives identity to the moment of communication, it affects both opponents and its own. After all, winning wasn’t partly a network phenomenon? He knew how to take advantage of the decentralized scheme that militancy in networks and the digital ecosystem implies, he ended up successfully positioning himself in front of an electorate that consumes the mainstream. It became a memetic phenomenon that now costs us the loss of rights.
The fact that there are militants who manage accounts with a greater number of visits than the official accounts, and that they replicate and propagandize the president’s memetic intervention responds to the same logic as Milei’s likes, of which he is not responsible.
These likes are what help radicalize the discourse with their endorsement. And the statements of Manuel Adorni have the same logic, who does not commit, does not take charge or make judgments about the crime, in the same way the accusations by X (exTwitter) to Carlotto have the logic of spreading the message of hate. in social networks.
Milei’s denialism transcends the discourse, the government dismantles the Working Group on Archives of the Armed Forces, allows US intervention in Argentine sovereignty; Milei, he doesn’t just give likes.
Last March 24, one of the largest, if not the most massive demonstration took place on the anniversary of the memory. Not only because of the aberrant crimes inspired by denialist discourse in paramilitary and parastatal violence, in gender stereotypes and in enabling hate speech; also because the government’s speech and actions have asked for it.
Wherever the speech is hateful, human rights will speak; There where responses of endorsement or indifference, and actions against the people are daily bread, memory, truth and justice will be sought.
This March 24, people took to the streets who, no matter how militant they were, did not go out. In times of injustice, the response will always be with the fight for the disappeared detainees. Milei clearly has legal legitimacy as elected president but not social legitimacy as a denier in her speech and actions.
* Advanced History student, Unco Neuquén.