[Reader-list] Rhetorical Question

[Gargi Sen]

Thank you Khemendra. That was indeed a very gracious apology. Lets continue
this tone in our conversations on this list and you know what, we might
actually talk.

I think Junaid is saying something very, very important.

I think I can support that almost wholeheartedly. My only reservation though
comes from violence. Violence of the freedom lovers and violence of the
Indian military.

What do you say?
Gargi


On 9/16/07 6:22 PM, "Kshmendra Kaul" <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.
> _________________________________________ 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:
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>