[Reader-list] How Fake and How Hollow

[Rahul Asthana]

Shuddha,
Suggesting to ignore the posting of someone is
condescension\intolerance in my book.It may not be to
you,and I do realize that making that ad hominem
remark displayed my intolerance,so I apologise for
that Anyway this is the last I have to say on this
account.
My more pertinent point was that Islamophobes (I am
using this word instead of your Hindutva vadis,
because one may not always be the other and vice
versa) are not  aliens. Some of them may be your
family members,close friends,colleagues etc. They just
should not be labelled and ignored, but engaged. If Ms
Jogi is on this list, it is because she wants to have
a dialogue, whatever the tone of that interaction may
be.
But anyway, to each their own, I guess.
Thanks
Rahul


--- Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:

> Dear Rahul, Vedavati, Abhik (and everyone else on
> this list)
> 
> 1. Every list member is free to express their views
> on this list. This 
> list does not have a policy of banning any member,
> or censoring content. 
> This is not going to change. I think that the value
> of the freedom of 
> expression on this list is far greater than the
> consequences of having 
> to deal occasionally with the excesses of some of
> our fellow members. If 
> we ban Vedavati for something that she may have
> said, then we will set 
> an unfortunate precedent by which people may keep
> calling for bans on 
> people they do not agree with, eventually, this will
> lead to the death 
> of debate and dissent on this list. I would not like
> things to come to 
> such a pass.
> 
> 2. I have never suggested that Vedavati be banned,
> or that her posts be 
> censored, neither now, nor on earlier occasions. So,
> I do not quite see 
> how 'fake and hollow...the liberalism and tolerance'
> that I 'wear on 
> (my) sleeve is in the  face of handling Vedavati's
> posts' actually is. 
> (as has been suggested by Rahul Asthana). If anyone
> else actually sees 
> how 'fake and hollow' it is, I would be grateful if
> they could enlighten 
> me, so that I can take measures to endow my
> liberality and tolerance 
> with authenticity and depth. I had suggested that
> spats of this nature 
> (as had occurred between Vedavati and Abhik) be
> ignored in the larger 
> interests of the discursive life of this list. To
> advise fellow list 
> members to ignore a provocation is not the same as
> asking for the 
> provocator to be banned. Until and unless it can be
> demonstrated that I 
> have asked for a gag order on Vedavati, it remains
> to be demonstrated as 
> to how fake and hollow my liberality and tolerance
> actually are. I am 
> willing to wait patiently for that to be
> demonstrated.
> 
> 3. An aside : I find Sunandan's responses to
> 'Vedavatism' very 
> appropriate, and I think that hindutva apologists
> are best disarmed with 
> a refined sense of the absurd. Sunandan's response
> has a sophistication 
> that I find it possible to learn from.
> 
> 4. I prefer visible to invisible biases. My biases
> have never been 
> invisible. I take special care to render them
> visible in everything I 
> write. I think this makes for transparent and open
> debate.
> 
> 5. The responsibility of being a participant in a
> free and uncensored 
> list requires me occasionally to make my stand
> clear, in this case, I 
> have only stated that I disagree with neither the
> content of Vedavati's 
> interventions, nor the tenor of Abhik Samanta's
> response to those 
> interventions. Failing to do so, would make me
> complicit in endorsing 
> one or the other of these stances. I wish to do
> neither.
> 
> 6. To fight what I think is secterian hatred with
> misogyny seems to me 
> to betray a poverty of discursive imagination. I
> hope that the list can 
> rise above this, and would welcome (if others so
> desire) a serious 
> debate on issues of religion, nationalism and
> identity on the list. It 
> would be preferable if such a debate could
> articulate a complex range of 
> issues without getting stuck in the rut of the
> vocabulary of reciprocal 
> abuse and name calling, so that we dont have to
> waste our time and 
> limited attention spans in clearing the air in the
> wake of particularly 
> offensive posts. At the risk of repetition, let me
> state that I would 
> personally welcome a serious intervention from
> Vedavati, or from any 
> person sympathetic to her positions, that can be
> debated seriously, 
> without anyone having to deal with the detritus of
> personal and ad 
> hominem attacks.
> 
> 7. To do this, we (including Vedavati, or Abhik, or
> anyone else) do not 
> necessarily have to descend to the level of
> references to the 
> desirability of 'wrapping the bodies of muslim
> terrorists pigs' or to 
> references to a fellow list member's personal life
> (or lack of it).
> 
> 8. If anyone chooses to do so, it can only be seen
> as evidence of their 
> propensity for grandstanding, their willingness to
> be trapped in a never 
> ending game of reciprocal abuse, and a profound lack
> of seriousnes.
> 
> 9.Finally, I think everyone's point of view, no
> matter how objectionable 
> it may be to anyone else, deserves a fair hearing,
> but I also think that 
> this does mean that a person who sort of keeps
> grinding away at 
> monotonously offensive register riskes having
> themselves ignored by 
> others on the list. Eventually they may well find
> themselves isolated. 
> This list will never ban anyone, but a list that
> does not ban is also 
> very good at ignoring, isolating and cornering
> posters who deliberately, 
> and time and again make offensive postings. I would
> suggest that it be 
> understood that being ignored, isolated, cornered
> and exposed is a fate 
> far worse than being banned, because it does not
> come laden with the 
> promise of the potential glamour of being identified
> as someone who is 
> subject to censorship. Sometimes, to not be censored
> for what one says 
> is far more damaging to the self than to be censored
> for what one says.
> I hope Vedavati and Abhik both understand this,
> because each callous 
> statement that they (or anyone else) make(s) only
> exposes them further 
> in the eyes of this entire discursive community.
> 
> Enough said, now I would like to get back to work
> and get on with my life,
> 
> thank you, and apologies in advance for any offence
> caused deliberately, 
> or inadvertently to anyone on this list by this
> post. I mean that seriously.
> 
> regards
> 
> Shuddha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rahul Asthana wrote:
> > Shuddha,
> > For whatever its worth, I dont agree to your
> divisive
> > "us"  and "them" labelling and tactics of
> promoting
> > exclusivity and discouraging dialogue;which is
> akin to
> > what our politicians want so that they have their
> own
> > constituenties of voters who vote on non issues
> > Precisely for the   reason that I dont agree with
> > Vedavati, I hope she continues posting here and
> time
> > permitting I will try and have a dialogue with
> her,as
> > I have in the past.And your bias is clearly
> visible
> > when you somehow seem to understand Aviks post.
> > I personally dont give a damn who said what to
> > whom..(people have abused me in the past) but
> perhaps
> > some of you who wear your liberalism and tolerance
> on
> > your sleeve would realise how fake and hollow it
> is 
=== message truncated ===




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091