[Reader-list] Rhetorical Question

Sun Sep 16 18:22:20 IST 2007

Dear Naeem

  In the referred to posting, in the footnote I requested your indulgence and my readiness to receive a sharp retort from you.

  I do apologise for my posting suggesting that you were not considered "deserving" of an answer.

  Very frankly, the rhetorical nature of your question did not register with me. Maybe that was aided by my desire to see what kind of answers it would receive. 

  I must mention though that on the positive side it made me privy to some very well argued out guiding principles for "regulation" and "censorship" laid out by Shuddha. I regret it was at the cost of the "melodramatic subject header" using your name.

  Kshmendra Kaul

  PS: Is "basta ya" the equivalent of "let go of it"? In Bengali is it? 

Naeem Mohaiemen <naeem.mohaiemen at gmail.com> wrote:
  Kshmendra,
You can't really use my email to drive home a thesis about certain
topics being ignored (in the melodramatic subject header "Naeem
Mohaiemen did not deserve an answer").

I posted what was obviously a rhetorical question. A news report on an
ultra-violent horror film, prefaced by my question "Could it be, that
even now, there are certain lines to be drawn?". It was pretty obvious
that I was advocating censoring ultra-violent imagery in certain
contexts. I think most people got what my position was.

Thinking of two cases I dimly recall:
- A year after Brett Easton Ellis' AMERICAN PSYCHO was released (which
has some of the most noxiously violent, misogynist imagery on text,
although at a distance of almost a decade, I recognize lot of it as
satire-- but satire in extreme poor taste), a home was raided to catch
a brutal murder, and the same book was found on the bedside table.
- When two under-15 boys kidnapped an eught year old and strangled him
to death (this happened, if I recall correctly, in England in the
early 90s), a raid into their parents home discovered the film
CHUCKY-- in which the malevolent spirit is in a disfigured doll, which
looks like-- bingo-- an eight year old child.

I have always argued that certain ultra-violent imagery can push
certain persons over the edge into violent or copycat action.
Therefore it should at the least be criticized, as hate speech is
condemned. Because it directly encourages violence and murder.

This point was pretty obvious from my one-line rhetorical question as
well. So it was not really a question that was an orphan if left
without "an answer". So no, I didn't "deserve" or need an answer.

Shuddha wrote to me personally because he knows me personally. He even
invited me to post his response on Sarai list, but I spaced and
forgot. Basta ya, let's move on.

> From: Kshmendra Kaul 
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Naeem Mohaiemen did not deserve an answer
> To: shuddha at sarai.net
> Cc: reader-list at sarai.net
> Message-ID: <214127.82974.qm at web57202.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Shuddhabrata
>
> Your mail is addressed to me as an individual and therefore I shall equally courteously respond. Soon after though, in another mail you revert to "let us bunch them together" routine.
>
> It is interesting that some people who celebrate an individual's freedoms and thereby an individual's identity in this "intellectual community" should so readily chorus the "I see a mob, I see a mob, attack the mob" shouts irrespective of how varied the opinions, positions and arguments might be. Pick up one issue over which there might be strong disagreements and on that basis dismiss all else about anyone who might even remotely suggest himself/herself not subscribing to your views on any topic. Demonise them. No good should be seen in the devils by anyone, so cloud the scene with "They are a mob; They are a mob; Everyone must attack the mob".
>
> It was interesting to see someone like Rahul Asthana also (who in my opinion is one of the "decent" correspondents on this list) get clubbed (not by you) with the "mob" because he might have disagreed over some issue. "Rahul is a part of them, Rahul is a part of the mob, beware, you must see Rahul as part of the mob". Amusing.
>
> I see all of this as "intellectual cowardice" and a lack of "intellectual ethics". Those who find it convenient to see a "mob" end up becoming a "mob". It is sad because it includes some extremely sharp and bright intellect. Individual intellect however always sacrifices itself to the psyche of the "mob".
>
> Let me come to what your mail was essentially about.
>
> - Naeem asked a question in the room
> - I did not see Naeem receiving an answer in the room
> - Shuddha says he answered Naeem in private and explains why he did so
> - No one in the room saw Naeem receive an answer in public for a question he asked in public
> - As far as any member (including me) of the room is concerned, Naeem did not receive an answer.
>
> So Shuddha, there is no assumption on my part as far as that domain is concerned where the question was asked and where no answer was given. I am just a simple minded Horatio of simple philosophies of the apparent.
>
> Actually Shuddha, you of all the people should be able to appreciate that. I remember the rather facile but the distinctinctness and separateness with which you sought to aggressively define "public" and "private" spaces.
>
> I wonder now who should be the candidate for your threatening admonition of "watch it" and the pomposity in "...makes you (more than occasionally) run the risk of looking foolish."
>
> Shuddha your comment about me "Your eagerness to assume the role of the omniscient surveillance agent of other peoples' actions and opinions" might sound very telling but does not make me cringe (if it was meant to) simply because I was very interested in seeing what answers Naeem would receive. For me, the answers to that question from a "neutral" observer would only add perspectives to the discussion about "what" or "are there any at all" limits that can be considered for "individual" or "collective" freedom of expression.
>
> Thank you Shuddha for posting your response to Naeem. I saw the most significant part of your response in your words:
>
> """""" In each of these cases, i would call for the regulation of speech and expression because I believe that in each of these cases there is a direct harm to the life, or health, or liberty. or personal well being of a person or persons that can be solely attributed to the relevant speech act. And these are the only forms of speech or expression that I would be willing to endorse the censorship of.
>
> My personal view is, if the films you mention were fiction, then I would not censor them, but I have no problem with giving them a rating, I have written about it elsewhere, i have no problems with a ratings system, that spells out what is unsuitable for children, and carries warnings for strong content. If they were fiction, I would not watch them, because I find such material disgusting. BUt I dont think I have the right to stop other people from watching them.
>
> If it were non fiction, but were consensual, as in a bit of rough s and m, again, I would not watch, but would not advocate that those who want to watch (and perform) should not be allowed to do so.
>
> If it were non fiction, and non consensual, then I would advocate strict censorship, for the reasons I have spelt out above."""""""
>
> You have very clearly given the examples and the reasoning.
>
> You have for one set of cases used the evaluating principle of "...... there is a direct harm to the life, or health, or liberty. or personal well being of a person or persons that can be solely attributed to the relevant speech act" Could hardly be put better.
>
> So, although both "regulation" and "censorship" may be restrictive of the individual's right to freedom of expression or of that of the collective, yet have to be taken on board as possible necessities for a variety of reasons in a variety of situations.
>
> Both "regulation" and "censorship" cannot be an "open licence". The areas where they can be applied, the bases of application and the extent of application has to be extremely carefully thought about.
>
> Without any doubt (in my mind), the "regulatory" or "censoring" actions have to be sincere, honest, should not over-step the allowed briefs and not seek to serve hidden agendas.
>
> Disagreements (if any) perhaps boil down to WHO should lay down these standards, WHAT PROCESSES or 'sanctioned by Law' Institutions should be involved, WHAT AREAS and WHAT EVALUATIONS should be considered for application of the guiding principle "......there is a direct harm to the life, or health, or liberty. or personal well being of a person or persons that can be solely attributed to the relevant speech act"
>
> Shuddha, if my comments over your mail to Naeem seem like they misrepresent you, please do tell me (if you feel like doing so). Please make it specific and brief because you can very often be tediously boring and so convoluted that it defeats the purpose of making yourself understood, unless it is deliberately so strategised.
>
> In conclusion, your reference to "La La Land" is quite childish and hardly does credit to your intellect. Intellectual dishonesty. It was an expression used by me for specific reference to the attitude of "we do not care for the Nation, we do not believe in a Nation" (my own quote marks). It is hardly pertinent to this topic. Again, I see in it an attitude of "You are one of the mob, remember you spoke of La La Land. You must be attacked over it even if it has no bearing here" Sad attitude.
>
>
> Kshmendra Kaul
>
>
>
> Shuddhabrata Sengupta wrote:
> Dear Kshemendra,
>
> You said,
>
> "Ten days back, Naeem Mohaiemen posted a question "Is There Nothing You
> would Censor". It was pertinent to the then ongoing discussion about
> "freedoms". No one answered him. None of the leading lights of this
> "intellectual community" thought the question deserved an answer.The
> bunch of 'La La Land" hypocrites did not have the moral courage to answer."
>
> As a matter of fact, I did. Though in doing so, I did not think I was
> displaying anything by way of 'moral courage'. I thought I was simply
> haveing an exchange about the circumstances in which I would countenance
> or endorse, or at least not object to censorship.
>
> I answered Naeem off list. I wrote to him, personally, On the same day,
> in less than four hours after Naeem had posted his query. I enclose
> below (at the end of this post) the relevant excerpt from what I wrote
> to him.
>
> (I hope Naeem will not object, and I apologize to Naeem, and to the list
> for posting a private off-list conversation on the list, although it wa
> provoked by an on-list query,for reasons of clarification, and
> tangentially, to defend the honour, if you like, of 'La La Land'.)
>
> I did not think it necessary then to post this to the list because it
> consists in the main, of a quotation from something that I had already
> posted on the list, and that too recently, with some elaboration. I
> thought it would be a tad repetitive. But anyway, since it makes my
> position on censorship very clear,I am happy to include it, at the risk
> of repetitiveness.
>
> Once again, Kshemendra, watch it. Don't be so hasty in the making of
> assumptions about what other people might have done, or not have done.
> Your eagerness to assume the role of the omniscient surveillance agent
> of other peoples' actions and opinions makes you (more than
> occasionally) run the risk of looking foolish.
>
> Take Care, don't stumble, don't rush, the surfaces you fall on are very
> hard. 'La La Land' is not a gentle sort of place.
>
> Shuddha
>
> My reply to Naeem (with the time and date stamp) is below.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: urgent
> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 22:55:51 +0530
> From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta
> Reply-To: shuddha at sarai.net
> Organization: Sarai
> To: Naeem Mohaiemen
> References:
>
> Dear Naeem,
>
> ... I did write about what I would censor, some time back, in the
> post titled 'The Attack on Taslima Nasrin in Hyderabad I' posted on the
> 18th of August, and maybe it is pertinent to what you wrote and this is -
>
> "Similarly, if someone were to post photographic representations of
> children or animals in a pornographic form on any web forum or any other
> platform, I would call for its censorship, not because it is
> pornographic but because its implies sexual actions with implicitly
> unverifiable consent. Here, i would maintain that a drawn or written (as
> opposed to photographic) representation would not qualify in my view for
> censorship, though I would strongly criticse such a representation.
> Similarly, I would personally call for the censorship of the snuff
> videos of acts of beheading that jihadist groups in Iraq and elsewhere
> in the world are so fond of displaying on internet forums, or the
> photographic representations of hangings and public executions that the
> fascist and totalitarian regimes in Iran and China sometimes put out
> Not because I have a problem with the representation of violence per se,
> but because in these cases the act of representation itself is a
> violation of the liberty of those who are being killed. No one has asked
> them (the executed) for their consent to have their beheading or hanging
> put on public display.
>
> In each of these cases, i would call for the regulation of speech and
> expression because I believe that in each of these cases there is a
> direct harm to the life, or health, or liberty. or personal well being
> of a person or persons that can be solely attributed to the relevant
> speech act. And these are the only forms of speech or expression that I
> would be willing to endorse the censorship of."
>
> My personal view is, if the films you mention were fiction, then I would
> not censor them, but I have no problem with giving them a rating, I have
> written about it elsewhere, i have no problems with a ratings system,
> that spells out what is unsuitable for children, and carries warnings
> for strong content. If they were fiction, I would not watch them,
> because I find such material disgusting. BUt I dont think I have the
> right to stop other people from watching them.
>
> If it were non fiction, but were consensual, as in a bit of rough s and
> m, again, I would not watch, but would not advocate that those who want
> to watch (and perform) should not be allowed to do so.
>
> If it were non fiction, and non consensual, then I would advocate strict
> censorship, for the reasons I have spelt out above.
>
> Please post this argument if you find it necessary, I am a bit tired of
> posting on the list by now.
>
> thanks
>
> Shuddha
>
>
>
>
>
> Kshmendra Kaul wrote:
> > Ten days back, Naeem Mohaiemen posted a question "Is There Nothing You would Censor". It was pertinent to the then ongoing discussion about "freedoms".
> >
> > No one answered him. None of the leading lights of this "intellectual community" thought the question deserved an answer.
> >
> > The bunch of 'La La Land" hypocrites did not have the moral courage to answer.
> >
> > Kshmendra Kaul
> >
> > PS:
> > Dear Naeem
> >
> > It might upset you that the likes of me should be using your posting to make a point. You might ignore it, but if I receive a sharp retort from you, I will understand.
> >
> > KK
_________________________________________
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.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 