Fw: [Reader-list] The Vedavatis of this world

[Yousuf]

Dear Tapas/Vivek and others
Just to clarify that when I mentioned Ms.Jogi's
identity as someone who made a film for PSBT, I did
not get that information by googling. I had been
looking at some of the films made by PSBT and found
her name and synopsis by accident. And since I
rememberd her postings at Sarai, I wondered what kind
of children's films would be made by someone who is so
full of angst against some. Whether we discuss these
details in public or not, but we cannot ignore them if
we are even a bit concerned about what's going on in
the world. 
I would like to continue the debate with Vedavati in a
positive manner, and would be happy if I can reduce
any of her misundersandings.


--- Tapas Ray <tray at cal2.vsnl.net.in> wrote:

> Vivek:
> 
> Apologies to you and to other "practising
> pseudo-secularists" who have found
> my posts unethical. But I have a point or two to
> make about personal
> details.
> 
> I think this list - or any listserv for that matter
> - is a public space,
> which people enter with full knowledge of its
> publicness. Therefore, I think
> it is reasonable that they should expect to have the
> spotlight turned on
> their persons if they choose to enter into a
> discussion, especially on a
> controversial topic. By joining the list, and
> further by entering into a
> discussion, Vedavati has indicated a conscious
> choice to pass from the
> private to the public, even if she is not already a
> public figure, in the
> sense that she does not hold public office or is not
> well-known around the
> country or the world or whatever community one may
> choose as the reference.
> 
> Now the question of personal details. Unless you
> know something about the
> person, how do you place her/his statements in
> context? How do you interpret
> them? When you attend a meeting, don't you ever
> (consciously or
> unconsciously) place the speaker's statements in the
> context of what you
> know about her/him as an individual in all its
> dimensions? As for the
> concrete case of our discussion on Vedavati, I do
> not think I have mentioned
> anything other than what is relevant to the
> discussion. When I wrote that
> she seems to live "in an apartment building with a
> tell-tale name", I meant
> that the name of the apartment building underlines
> her stated beliefs.
> 
> I could have quoted the name of the building, indeed
> the address itself, but
> did not because I thought it would be neither
> necessary, nor right to
> pinpoint her apartment the way some US news web
> sites have pinpointed
> certain individuals' homes not only with addresses
> but also with satellite
> photographs. However, anyone can find Vedavati's
> address, even from the
> telephone directory (if one does not have access to
> the internet, which
> leaves out members of this list by definition).
> 
> Yes, googling does raise questions of surveillance
> and invasion of privacy.
> But is it fundamentally different from looking up a
> person on the phone
> book? In the case of search engines, the "phone
> book" covers the entire
> world and given you not just the phone number and
> the address, but masses of
> other information. Also, surveillance is usually
> understood in the sense of
> an activity of governments and corporations. I am
> sure you know they have
> other, extremely sophisticated methods - such as
> email interception - and do
> not depend just on search engines. Using the term
> "surveillance" with
> reference to the practice of "googling" people seems
> a bit out of proportion
> to me.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tapas
> 
> 
> > Hi Tapas and all,
> >
> > As a practising pseudo-secularist myself, I of
> course align with your and
> > others' reasoned positions politically, and have
> been quite disturbed by
> > some of the rhetoric that has recently made its
> presence felt on the list.
> >
> > *However*, I do think we should really refrain
> here from discussing any
> > person on the list or her/his personal details,
> especially if they are not
> > already public figures.   It happens a lot on the
> Hindutva lists, where
> > individuals of a certain political leaning are
> blacklisted and discussed
> > in a very personal and invasive way.  I don't
> think we should stoop that
> > low, and eventually it's likely to backfire.
> >
> > Googling is inevitable; but it does raise the
> spectre of surveillance and
> > violations of privacy.  To discuss an individual
> in this way on-- 
> > don't forget-- a listserve with over 1100
> subscribers worldwide is, I
> > think, hurtful.  I certainly wouldn't want my
> identity being probed in
> > public like that.
> >
> > And what, after all, happened to sophisticated
> discussion and analysis?
> > Humour and irony are always welcome; but with a
> little sensitivity,
> > please.
> >
> > My ten paise,
> > Vivek
> 
> 
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and
> the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to
> reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the
> subject header.
> List archive:
> <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com