[Reader-list] fatima's response

[S.Fatima]

Dear Vivek
I didn't say that the nuance is a previlege of only
the (Sarai) elite -- in fact, millions of nice people
who know the nuances haven't probably heard about
internet. I was only wondering about two things: (1)
if we know that certain Sarai readers are adamant
about posting all the rubbish, and there is no way
they will ever heed, then why can't Sarai moderator do
her job of moderating them. Is it because we are
afraid that our status as a democratic reader-list
will shatter. I think even democracry needs certain
rules, to check the unruly. Why can't we simply put
certain IDs on the moderated mode - their postings 
should pass only if they are not ranting, bantering,
or shlokaneering. To me, that's better than suggesting
everyone to apply filters. And I am sure enough
warnings have already been given for this moderation
to start. Allow them to post only if they sensibly add
something to the on-going debates.  

(2) My other idea (which maybe contrary to the first
one) was that there is much worse ranting in real life
than what we've witnessed on Sarai. We are already
distanced from some of that, and want to become
further distanced by removing whatever little
irritants we have. But in real life this ranting is a
much bigger/deeper malaise, and it and won't get cured
by our filtering of it. So I am just wondering if the
reader-list (or internet for that matter) is able to 
play any role in changing the ranting habits of the
people. 

You talk about warmth in the postings. But internet
promotes a hit-and-run approach, people can post
incognito, there is no accountibility - it is in fact
worse than a street. I am sure the warmth in postings
comes only from those people who are known to Sarai or
know each other, hence they write carefully.


--- Vivek Narayanan <vivek at sarai.net> wrote:

> 
> Dear Fatima,
> 
> Thank you for your nuanced and considered note. 
> Please note again that 
> I am not speaking for anyone else but myself,
> certainly not as a "voice 
> of Sarai".  I don't think nuance is the privilege or
> preserve of any 
> group, nor does it depend on education or decorum. 
> Instead, it's a 
> certain warmth and hospitality, and a willingness to
> listen carefully, 
> and to be considered in one's responses. 
> Essentially, it is about 
> coming to the conversation in good faith, with love
> and with 
> thoughtfulness-- not with the intention to sabotage
> dialogue or shout 
> down others. Most of all, if it becomes obvious that
> a reply has been 
> dashed off in a couple of seconds and, moreover,
> five or seven of those 
> replies are sent in the course of a single day, then
> I feel that this 
> wastes my time and makes it difficult to find the
> mails on the list that 
> are more carefully thought out.
> 
> So I disagree with you *completely* that such
> qualities would be found 
> only among "elites at Sarai".  These are protocols
> that one finds with 
> many people on the street, regardless of their
> background and access to 
> privilege.  In fact, as you well know, on the Indian
> street, it is often 
> the rich and privileged who tend to shout louder,
> for they fear no 
> reprisal.  Right wing nationalists can feel secure
> in the knowledge that 
> they have the support of the state behind them.  I
> would not be 
> surprised if, in monitoring this list, there would
> be members who would 
> not hesitate to report anyone they considered to be
> "anti-national" to 
> the authorities.  This is the kind of insecurity
> that shadows our 
> conversations here--the question of what kinds of
> statements might 
> involve violent reprisals or legal censure, and so
> on; this is the 
> fragility of the discussions that have been built up
> on this list over 
> the course of five or so short years.
> 
> Yes indeed, one is dedicated here to the vibrancy,
> variousness and 
> quirkiness of the street--with the caveat that all
> our members are at 
> least privileged enough to have access to the
> internet.  (Some write so 
> often that they must almost certainly have their own
> full-time dedicated 
> broadband.)   Yet, it only takes a few goondas to
> suppress and drown out 
> all the many conversations, trying to fill the space
> with only their own 
> voices.  In such instances, to renew our
> conversations, our whispering 
> faith in each other, it may be necessary to shut out
> the bullies for a 
> while.  This would not be to pretend that those
> bullies don't exist; 
> merely it would be to acknowledge that they don't
> have anything new to 
> say.  We have heard that shtick before.
> 
> But again: my mail was addressed only to those who
> already felt the same 
> way as me, and who wanted a practical and efficient
> solution.   We have 
> very different positions on this question even at
> Sarai; some agree with 
> me, some most certainly don't.  Those who have the
> time and energy to 
> stay tuned to the bullying and the threatening and
> the chanting of 
> shlokas and spells must please do so.  I can even
> say I admire your 
> Gandhian equanimity.  I, on the other hand, have
> other things to do, and 
> I can't afford to spend my time fighting an endless
> war of attrition, in 
> the trenches, with little or no gain from day to
> day, on the Line of 
> Discursive Control (LODC), here on the reader list.
> 
> Warmly,
> Vivek
> 



      Now you can chat without downloading messenger. Go to http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php