Mediatization, polarization, and intolerance (between environments, media, and circulation)

Trajectories of coronavirus and interpenetrations of social discourses 217 announced his refusal to the request for interaction but enunci- ated in an injunctive manner his non-fulfillment, by ordering the woman to leave the interactional framework that she tried. “If you wanted to speak, get out of here because you were heard. Ask your governor. Get out of here” (YAHOO NEWS, 10/06/20). In this scenario in which Covid-19 was spreading, the rationality of the political discourse was challenged and set back. On the one hand, the invitation to move to another relational context. On the other hand, on the part of the president, the re- fusal of interaction when inviting her to go on another route, since he remained on the one where the “combat discourses” circulated. Political discourse renounced interpenetrations with discursiveness since the postulates of its functioning did not contemplate other attempts at interactions. The president refused to follow his collectives, accord- ing to the listening to a discourse whose effects would send him to another frame of understanding, in addition to the presumed effects of his combatant speech. When challenged by the wom- an who, emerging from his collectives, demanded another role from him to understand differently the unfolding of the virus trajectories, the president refused, announcing that he would re- main there, alongside those with whom he would maintain the combat trajectories. By putting himself as someone who delegated, the president incited his peers to a mission whose delegation ef- fect exposed them to a situation of a conflagration. A practice emerged that has put actors more in situations of combat than in events of dialogue, conversation, or understanding. The cir- cumstance by which he delegated a supervisory action covered by the ingredients and motivations that emanated from the ra- tionality suggested exclusively by the leader himself seemed to be problematic. In the tentative meeting between the activist and the president, we had another communicational framework, in which someone who emerged in the context of collectives invit- ed the president to another listening enterprise, whose practice removed the “ordinary man” from the supervisory role, as the president suggestedwhen exhorting his followers to inspect hos- pitals. It would also remove the president from the condition of