Daniel Guzmán and the Cost of Pointing Out Contradictions

Daniel Guzmán and the Pointed Contradiction

What's the use of pointing out a contradiction if pointing it out changes nothing? The case of Daniel Guzmán serves as a thermometer for that uncomfortable question. The actor, as recalled in the thread, premiered a film less than a year ago about housing poverty and, according to the circulating account, allegedly used boxing colleagues to evict the occupants of a property he owns. On Constitution Day, moreover, he cited Article 47 — the one on the right to decent housing — on social media.

The Actor Who Champions Article 47 of the Constitution

The paradox is not new: the thread recalls other cases of those who pontificate about the right to housing. Article 47 of the Constitution recognizes the right to enjoy decent and adequate housing. Riding contradictions, one participant calls it. And it's not a phenomenon exclusive to this case.

The List of Contradictions Attributed to the Left

The list extends: from the 20 apartments attributed to Wyoming to Pablo Iglesias's mansion in Galapagar, including properties a participant assigns to Pedro Sánchez. The underlying argument is always the same — the sarracena superiority of those who denounce speculation while participating in it — and the counterargument is also the same: the right, which claims to be constitutionalist, would support practices that clash with that same Article 47.

Using Force When the State Fails Its Duty

Here the ground splits. One participant argues that resorting to force against someone occupying a property is legitimate when the State fails to do its job. The outcome of the debate, in any case, is the same: the pointed contradiction doesn't move a single vote on its own. Not a single apartment.