April 13, 2007
One Drop, One Percent, One Community (We Should Be)Musings
I am heartsick. I want no part of what has been occurring in “my house” as of late.
When Abhi approached me about starting a group blog to highlight “brown” aspects of the 2004 presidential race, I immediately agreed to take part. Why wouldn’t I? This project would seek out and illuminate that which the mainstream media couldn’t be bothered with— discrimination against a journalist with a South Asian name, the disrespect shown to our culture by a state branch of a major political party, essentially, the desi angle to everything around us. We would light the political and social night. We could be a beacon to every other South Asian American who felt exactly what we felt, lived through what we had, questioned what we did.
As an Orthodox Christian, the concept of “light” is sacred to me; I stood with almost a thousand people last Saturday night, waiting for our priest to throw open the doors to the altar, holy fire held high. The altar boys would take bits of that flame for their own candles, then fan out and pass the light on to the first row of parishioners, who would turn and continue the cycle, one pew lighting the candles behind it until everyone was bathed in the glow that only comes from flame and wax. The ritual which had taken place for over a millennia demonstrated how consummate darkness would always be destroyed by light. Light, a symbol of hope, a symbol of truth. Light, a visual reminder of the triumph of good over evil.
Evil does live in the dark. It lurks in shadows where it ensnares victims of rape, gagging them with shame while concomitantly extinguishing their inner flames.
One of the reasons why rape survivors do not come forward is because they are terrified that they will be doubted. They will be humiliated again, this time by those who should know better, who work for justice. Bruised and broken, they are forced to relive their ordeal while relating it to cynics and skeptics. The burden is on the survivor and that isn’t right. Yes, sometimes people lie and manipulate sympathy but that never justifies being unkind.
Once, in my Freshman-year theology class, Sister Veronica was asked about whether one should always provide alms for beggars. “Sister…isn’t it true that these people are bums? That they are going to just spend the money on drugs or booze? That’s what my Dad said and that’s why I don’t give them money anymore.” Sister Veronica’s face became serene.
“Child, you have been taught since kindergarten to see the face of Christ in everyone you meet, no matter who they are. Yes, even those whom you refer to as ‘bums’ have a divine inner light because just like you, they are children of God. They deserve to be treated that way.”
“But sister-“
“No buts. Even if they are going to use the pennies you give them for something else, even if they are lying about how they need money for food, even if they plan to buy drugs, you must believe that they are truly in need. Only God is allowed to judge others. And that unfortunate soul really might be in need—how would you know if they weren’t? And wouldn’t it be awful if you let your preconceived notions, your assumptions prevent you from doing what is right? From helping someone who truly needs it? You never know someone else’s story, so don’t act as if you do. Act as if you don’t. And act as if the best, not the worst is what is true.”
I have carried those words, albeit imperfectly with me since that sunny California afternoon when I first heard them in 1988.
Maybe I am hypersensitive about this because I am usually the victim of people assuming the worst about me. At no less than three meetups, I have been approached privately by sheepish attendees who felt the need to identify themselves a second time—beyond the usual “hey, everyone say your name and if you comment, what name you comment under!”— this time with their “troll handle”. In each of those situations, they extended apologies and some version of the following: “I don’t know why I thought you were a such a bitch/jerk/asshole when it’s not like I met you or knew you and now that I have met you, I feel bad.” Right. Thank you. I’m generally left a bit dazed by such encounters, but I am always grateful for them; I get those Mea Culpas via email, too.
But at least I get them. I don’t know if others are as lucky. I noticed that a few of you—and that few includes people whom I considered friends— isolated a commenter, surrounding him and casting aspersions at him as if they were stones. What’s worse, even after SM Intern intervened to proclaim that the mutineer being pelted was INNOCENT, this unconscionable behavior CONTINUED. So much for “my house”, for Sepia Mutiny being a “safe space”. It is not right. And I will neither host nor participate in a community that behaves in such a vicious manner.
Who are any of us, to require that someone substantiate their life story? The person in question wasn’t asking for anything from us, beyond the usual respect and courtesy we normally extend to one another. If other commenters chose to express their sympathy or good will towards someone brave enough to bare themselves so totally and vulnerably (and yes, I know a little something about THAT, too, which is a huge part of why I’m livid) then it’s no one else’s business to insert themselves in to that emotional transaction.
I normally don’t get into personal lives and attacks, but had to respond to this since there was an outpouring of sympathy for you on this board. If there’s anything I cannot stand, it’s undeserved praise, criticsm [sic] or sympathy. [link]
Who among us is qualified to determine what another deserves when it comes to something as free and abundant as sympathy? We weren’t donating money or time or anything else to an unworthy cause, we were merely reaching out and offering comfort—was that so wrong?
I find it bitterly amusing that on a website where we rail against the ineffectiveness and injustice of profiling, some of us did exactly that. A few of our commenters posse’d up and attacked someone on the basis of their grammar, spelling, syntax. They decided that their quarry sounded female or FOBish or this or that. How does that possibly differ from my getting yanked out of the security checkpoint line at Dulles or JFK because my skin is brown and my name seems furrin? If it’s not fair to say I look like a terrorist than it is similarly uncalled for to say a commenter sounds like a __ .
Assumptions are a terrible, dangerous thing, aren’t they? Please, let’s all try and avoid them, if for no other reason than to sustain the existence of this precious, fragile community which means everything to me. If it means anything to you, join me in insisting on civility at the Mutiny and model it for all. None of us is perfect, I know I have a wicked temper, but I’m trying to be better and I hope you will, too.
To the person who was singled out for such undeserved treatment: my sincerest apologies. I hope you know you are always welcome in our home.
anna on April 13, 2007 12:30 PM in Blog, Issues, Musings · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Anna thank you very much.
Like I said in the other post I'm willing to answer questions, if anybody has any about my marriage.
Off topic Anna I noticed in one of your blogs that you taste in music is very good, plus your a fan of Tanya Donelly/Belly, which is always a good thing.
i'm not even a sm blogger, and i too want apologize for that particular comment. been a big fan of sepiamutiny for quite a while now. SM Intern can't keep an eye on all comments, so to keep this community going we certainly need to think before we say such hurtful things.
Anna, thanks for this call for acceptance, empathy and non-judgmentality. Really, this is your home, and one of the reaasons I've felt so much also at home here is the amazing warmth and welcomingness that I've found. This is one of the greatest things about SM, and I salute your attempt to keep it that way.
You were right to call out those who, in spite of being warned, persisted in airing their prejudice, for that is what it is, even if some of the offenders were people you are friends with. This incident has a stink of classism about it, and undertones of regionalism/communalism besides, that must be exposed. I'm not saying anything I haven't said before, but the original poster brings in really valuable perspectives that are different from those of the majority at SM precisely because his experiences have been different from those of the majority, just like most South Asians in North America have had experiences different from the majority of other North Americans. Not being "articulate" should never, ever, disqualify anyone from being patiently, empathically, and non-judgmentally heard.
"SM Intern can't keep an eye on all comments"
speaking of which, some poor soul is in need of some clean up here.
You're a wonderful writer, Anna. Your description of the candle service and its meaning was just lovely.
I enjoy reading SM, but sometimes I do wonder at the tenor of some comments. Recently, I read about some blog collectives putting forth some voluntary civility guidelines for posting. The usual debate ensued about freedom of speech in the blogosphere vs. proprietary rights to a personal blog, etc. But I wondered whether any such discussion had occurred on this site? Are their any posting guidelines apart from the "please don't feed the trolls?"
S
Whose God-- thanks for the alert. Done. :)
hey ppl,
those comments that you talked about, were deplorable and should never have occured.
But at this time, would also like to appreciate how you guys helped everyone get together in the case against Mr. Nag.
You guys did end up meeting ypur aims when you set up the site.
One good reason to have registered users with ability to view commenting history of other users. Just saying..
I was worried when I saw this post that comments could start getting snippy and our little community would no longer be the same. So far it seems my fears won't be realized, of which I am grateful.
Well written post BTW Anna. I usually drift off reading long posts, but I read this one through and also went back to read the comments on the previous post leading to this.
Anna chechi,
In principle, I totally agree with you, but is it so wrong to notice and point out that maybe a given story does not gel? Sympathy with a side helping of discernment, perhaps?
Discernment is always good; there is a way to phrase things that isn't accusatory. This is essentially about courtesy, which is necessary if we are to survive as a mutinous community.
The egregious aspect of this incident was the fact that after Clueless' comments were verified, people STILL piled on-- what excuse can there be for that? Who are we to decide how someone should sound? It's ludicrous. Someone sounds like a girl? What do girls sound like? Am I the only one who is flummoxed at this?
No, you weren't. This needs to stop.
Nicely put ANNA. There is always a possibility of getting attacked when you expose your vulnerable side.
I never knew that 20 year old men can be hitched to someone like that on a vacation, if its true, its scary :(. Hopefully its a very rare case.
Outstanding post. There is nothing wrong with expecting guests to display a modicum of civility. Congratulations on restoring order to your online home...and thanks again for inviting us in!
Lovely sentiment, thanks for sharing. I've been reading SM pretty regularly for just over a month now (after lurking on and off forever) and I was a little taken aback with the assumptions a couple of commenters made based on my harmless remarks (apparently I am a "dumb ass" and "too suburban" even though I've lived in a city my entire life). As such, I have purposely kept my remarks rather inane until I feel "safe" posting more opinionated stuff.
Looking at this question from a general perspective (not looking at the specific case you're talking about in the original post), there' are some general principles that indicate a female perspective rather than a male perspective (and vice versa). Yes, there are women that know a thing or two about baseball, but certain topics (*cough* romance *cough*) have pretty clear "male" and "female" perspectives. And this is even ratified by some female neuropsychiatrists
You never know someone else’s story, so don’t act as if you do. Act as if you don’t. And act as if the best, not the worst is what is true.
Words to live by, for sure.
I tried (in that earlier discussion) to point out that the veracity of a commenter's post should be less important than its content. Ultimately, people say things on blogs they wouldn't say in real life (true or otherwise), partly because the internet is an impersonal and anonymous forum.
In other words, does it really matter if someone is "making it all up", as long as they're making a point?
Thanks for this reality check, ANNA, and apologies, again to Clueless over this whole awful thing.
I agree with KarmaByte's user registration suggestion. If that presents too many technical difficulties, people might be encouraged at least to provide links to their web/blog page or an email address--if they wish to be taken seriously. Much of the dungflinging comes from anonymous online ciphers, who can say whatever they want without being accountable to anyone (except by being banned or deleted). Posters with a least small connection to the physical world rarely start food fights. Yeah, there are privacy and spam concerns and all that, but it's no big deal to add another yahoo or gmail address just for the purposes of posting here. At least, we could all try to get along.
I cannot believe you linked to that fucking book. That is the worst fucking example of neuropsychiatry in today's pop-hype market and the fact you had to pull it off ABC.com decries it even further. Even if men and women do have different perspectives, many of which are societally conditioned and do frequently exist on this thread their reactions and behaviors should be respected whether or not they are "typically female" or "typically male".
As a Punjabi, I totally can see his story being played out.
I am going to suspect that he doesnt want to divorce his wife because she has most likely threatened to kill herself if he does divorce her and who want's that on his head?
I also try not to judge people because that just limit's your mind. I try to act like Larry David on Curb Your Enthusiasm. He can have a conversation with a person with down syndrome, a Muslim woman in a Burka, and a African American prostitute all while not passing one judgement and just talking to them like a normal human being and that include's cussing them out if he need's to. He even got into a fight with a Sikh guy in one episode, not because of his turban, but because he stole a watch from Larry. I just that it was refreshing to see some one get into a fight with a Sikh, not because of religion, but because of a totally justified scenerio and it was all done without any mention of his turban.
Anyway's, back to the topic. As a person, who sometime's believe's in God, I really do like the "Only God can judge me" statement. I find it comforting in the fact that, we all live in glass house's, and if we want to judge people in a bad way, 99% of the time it can be passed right back to you.
I use to hold back so much when I was younger for the fear of "judgement" from my peers. Now I live by the code of "what ever!"
Guy reading comment: ShallowThinker, you are the dumbest Indian alive and may God have mercy on your soul
ShallowThinker: What ever!
Go from zero...
to sixty
in 3 seconds...
Well, I'm not a neuroscientist, but I've read the book, and if anything, the complaints are that it indulges in male bashing too much, which I could see.
I never said anything about disrespecting perspectives, only that I believe there are indeed identifiable perspectives, particularly on certain topics.
0 to 60 (in half an hour), but my point stands in both extremes. It did indulge in male bashing and I was against that among many of its topics that seemed to want to establish a "oh we can't help it" reason for behavior and discrimination. But yeah, despite whatever vague "identifiable perspectives" you're referring to, we're agreeing so now I'm stopping.
Regardless of whether SM Intern verified aspects of a poster's identity, how does this automatically dictate that any related skepticism is unconscionable? I read the "offending" posts and frankly didn't find anything trollish or vicious about them. When a person chooses to post, those comments are naturally subject to varying interpretations. This is the nature of an online forum and moreover, human perception - requiring that someone's life story be substantiated is almost frivilous. We don't know Clueless and we don't need to know Clueless to have reactions to his commentary that are legitimate simply because they are sincere, even if not sympathetic.
If none of us is qualified to determine whether another deserves sympathy, then none of is qualified to determine that another should indeed mete out sympathy. Scrutinizing a post based on grammar, spelling, syntax is reasonable when evaluating posts on a message board and is not the same as attacking someone based on skin color.
The male and female body are anatomically, physiologically and hormonally different, it just doesn't seem far fetched the brains are too. I never got the "oh we can't help it" vibe, truthfully, in fact in the forward, the author says it was a lack of inquiry into the female neuroanatomy (quite possibly, out of a male-dominated scientific community) that prompted her to write the book.
"I agree with KarmaByte's user registration suggestion. If that presents too many technical difficulties, people might be encouraged at least to provide links to their web/blog page or an email address--if they wish to be taken seriously. Much of the dungflinging comes from anonymous online ciphers, who can say whatever they want without being accountable to anyone (except by being banned or deleted). Posters with a least small connection to the physical world rarely start food fights. Yeah, there are privacy and spam concerns and all that, but it's no big deal to add another yahoo or gmail address just for the purposes of posting here. At least, we could all try to get along."
I like to stay anonymous until I want to reveal more about myself - just b/c you are anonymous doesn't mean you are a cipher. Unless the blog rules change, I'll continue to be anonymous and for me being anonymous doesn't take away my sense of responsibility for what I say.
And everyone should live or emote by your standards? Others were disturbed by what happened, are they less qualified or credible than you?
Fine. Split hairs if you must, but I think it's bullshit to decide that someone sounds like a whatever based on what they write. It's one thing to scrutinize, it's another to vilify. If people decided at some point that Clueless was a female and then had a "Crying Game" moment of reckoning, that isn't Clueless' fault or his responsibility to suffer.
I'm not suggesting people sacrifice their anonymity. Just that they be reachable via email. It's enormously helpful (and a brake on a food fight) to be able to correspond (civilly) with someone you disagree with. Instead of calling names or posting some slander that can't be retracted, a simple email saying, "What did you mean when you said X?" can go a long way toward forestalling pandemonium.
But this is probably just a pipe dream. I have been accused of heinous crimes here on SM and no one has bothered to email me or call (such info is on my website) and ask for clarification or just register discontent.
To be honest, the only reason I don't post my email address is b/c I hate getting crappy spam from little demons running through message boards.
Pondatti, since from past posting you seem to favor equations:
all disturbance NOT= effects of trolling
disagreeing NOT= vilifying
1 troll NOT= ALL trolls if they happen to agree with said troll
people deciding Clueless was female NOT= suffering??
MY opinion NOT= standards that all should live by and/or lack of credibility of others
Not Mishi
an honest question: did you purposefully write a post with two grammatical errors and one spelling error as a form of irony? it changed the way i viewed your post, if you were being sly and sneaky like that.
(email me at brooklynDOTmasalaATgmailDOTcom if you want the list)
BrooklynBrown:
how der u juge me for me sintacks
Yours Trule
Sligh and Sneekie
How do you disagree with someone's life?
a: This is my life story.
b: I do not concur!
Regardless of whether SM Intern verified aspects of a poster's identity, how does this automatically dictate that any related skepticism is unconscionable?
I guess my question is what is the value of said skepticism, other than to call someone out as a troll, or to cast doubt on the contents of the post. Frankly, I don't see that skepticism is warranted, primarily because it does nothing to advance a discussion.
Very mature. And useful for the purpose of this post.
"I'm not suggesting people sacrifice their anonymity. Just that they be reachable via email. It's enormously helpful (and a brake on a food fight) to be able to correspond (civilly) with someone you disagree with. Instead of calling names or posting some slander that can't be retracted, a simple email saying, "What did you mean when you said X?" can go a long way toward forestalling pandemonium. "
I've said it before and I'll say it again-
Whatever you guys need done to take out the trash-registrations, cash, etc. that's fine. BTW, I feel that even though everyone here has both my email and my blog address (and the bloggers have my digits too!) that I am still anonymous. It would obviously be very damaging to my kids and my job if it were known who I actually am. I have the coach diesel@hotmail account specifically for my forays into the blogging world so I don't get message board spam.
>>And everyone should live or emote by your standards?
I have never asked anyone to follow my standards because they are from me. On the contrary, I've been hinted to follow Veronica's standards. Because, you know, they make sense. To orthodox victims.
In hindsight, I think I made a mistake by challenging Clueless's personal claims. As someone else said, how does it matter whether Clueless is telling the truth or not? Such things do happen in the Punjabi diaspora. It is better to talk about issues than personalities. But I got suckered in by the ludicrity of it all.
M. Nam
I think one of the biggest ways to "clean up" would be for hecklers/trolls/people with an axe to grind to contact the blogger or commenter whom they have issues with directly, instead of passively aggressively trying to engage their targets via comment threads. It is possible to email every person in the bunker. Look in to it; if it doesn't appeal to you because it means you won't have an audience, then your intentions are hardly pure.
Coach is right, it's possible to have credibility (an email address goes a long way, as others have affirmed) AND maintain anonymity.
Hema you raised this question several times and so I'm responding. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter who the messenger is as long as the message is valid but the messenger loses credibility and it grates to communicate with someone you feel like isn't real because you find holes and see patterns.
There have been some massive fights on SM in the past and people driven out because they were considered "trolls" and the most recent one I can think of is Pardesi Gori. Why was it OK to deem her a troll? Because everyone agreed and held hands on it? Why were we not one community of tolerant people then? I've never experienced this with anyone in the past on SM before and sincerely I'm not a troll and am not trying to be trollish at all. I've been attacked myself in the past, well and good. There were some anger issues stemming from that person. I rubbed her the wrong way. Whatever. I'm not sure I'd dismiss her as a troll. She didn't like me. I can appreciate that.
I agree 100% and hence have kept my mouth shut in the past because really its pointless to discuss the semantics of a poster when the message is important. But when the discussion becomes about the poster and not the message and you just don't agree it becomes uncomfortable.
Look at the end of the day I'm a guest on this blog as anyone else and understand the rules of engagement and conduct and appreciate them. I'm not perfect but I'm not a troll and certainly have zero to gain by attacking someone at all. And because I'm not a troll that I would attack someone at all and "gang" up on them for no reason is an implication I don't appreciate nor do I appreciate being called out on being in some clique with Moornam who again I don't know from the nail on the wall.
MoorNam:
If you have a problem with me or my calling you out for the unsuitable treatment you meted out to Clueless, email me directly.
Did you feel powerful after such pettiness? I hope so. I imagine that such sniping is the only pleasure you get to experience. I tried to write a post to bring some civility to this space AND to explain where I am coming from, in order to facilitate understanding and dialogue. If you feel like mocking me for it, feel free. Oh, wait, you don't need my permission to be a sarcastic jerk, do you?
Hema you raised this question several times and so I'm responding.
Uh, my experience is that you pretty have to say everything three times to get noticed around here. ;)
Unless you post something completely incendiary, of course. Then it gets noticed right away.
I suppose quoting on the value of skepticism would be apposite but erring again on the side of immaturity:
"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." - Bertrand Russell
Oh Woe Clueless, that online apparition! In real life, a simple count would have settled the matter.
Some people just cant admit they are WRONG. How hard could it be to utter, scratch that, type that I am sorry?
But why does it matter whether he was male or female?
Oh Woe Clueless, that online apparition! In real life, a simple count would have settled the matter.
Heh. Ok, you got me. I'm not saying skepticism has no value. I'm just saying questioning the veracity of a commenter while looking past the discussion-worthy content of the comment seems not to serve any useful purpose (IMO).
Well, other than entertainment, I suppose.
Anna, you are absolutely right, it does not matter. I think that was my point all along. Although I think it's admirable that you corroborated Clueless's commentary and defended him, I don't think enduring skepticism is a cause for much concern.
Clueless was thought of as female/fob because men aren't allowed to be hurt or victimized. For one to speak about his suffering in public is making heads explode. Ultimately, gender really shouldn't matter. What should matter is our compassion for that suffering.
I'm speaking as a female routinely mistaken for male on this blog.
Because she was one. And when someone switches IPs or handles so many times, to leave consistently incendiary comments, it's time for them to go. Or stay and cease with the trollery. It's been said before, it takes a lot more to get banned than one might think.
Jane, there have been situations when your comments regarding race were debated in the bunker; mutineers who knew you stood up for you. You may not appreciate being thrown in the same pile as Moor Nam, but you did join him in his obnoxious antics. And those who vouched for you are affected by that.
Look, no one is a saint. This community is going through growing pains and it's a critical point we are at...either we can try and establish (re-establish?) a tradition of civil discussion with our many newcomers or we will flame out like every other desi online community has. There's sarcasm and then there's snark. There's discernment and then there's distrust. Do you see where I'm going with this?
While I'm...grateful for it, I'm not looking for admiration, I'm looking for understanding so that I might achieve my end goal of an open space. I used the rape survivor analogy for a reason; I don't want people to feel like they can't share themselves here, because at Skeptical Mutiny, they are liars until proven truth-tellers, if that makes any sense.
If this community decays in to that, a moment like this, which affected so many, will never occur again. I will not put myself out there like that and if I wouldn't, I can't see anyone else doing it either. I still get letters from people who have gone through similar, who found comfort in that post and the ensuing thread. Between the Sanjaya posts and the identity-politics, we are doing actual, tangible, genuine good here. I am struggling to keep that goodness alive. To some readers, this is more than timepass. So much more. And they are why I spend the majority of my waking hours here, posting, monitoring, nudging, chiding, whatevering.
::
From an email I just received, less than a minute ago:
No, I don't know "Clueless" from Adam. But I don't need to know him to intervene when I see something which I am certain is WRONG. I'm not pumping him up, I'm trying to maintain order in my online home. Hope that sates your curiousity, even as it breaks my heart a little. Is it THAT difficult to grok what I'm trying to do?
Monkey # 4 you are absolutely right. I don't have now nor at any point have had any malicious intent. And my intent wasn't even to protect Moornam simply verbalizing my sort of similar sentiments. Perhaps this time discretion and not saying anything would have been more prudent. I meant no malice towards Clueless and I'm sorry. I don't want to perpetuate what I consider communication but what is being percieved as haterade.
At what point are we undermining the value of the discourse by imposing restrictions on commenting freedom under the guise of "civility"? If everyone on this board has to maintain impeccable political correctness and manners then this blog no longer remains as interesting for me. (I know this is a complex issue and the Imus incident comes to mind immediately as I have been giving this all a lot of thought).
I come to this site to get insights into issues that I don't come across elsewhere in such entertaining format. I welcome the variety of perspectives of the bloggers and commenters. While obvious troll rants should of course be called out like one this morning on an old thread from last year, there have been some call outs on this board that have made me think, "Really?" Should everyone be treading on eggshells, minding their p's & q's and sanitizing all responses lest they be viewed as making personal attacks? In the same way that you can't tell if a commentor is male or female, you can't always get a sense of whether they are being disengenuous or sincere.
Anna, you have written many, many wonderful and informative posts and I thoroughly enjoy reading them. I comment rarely because I nearly always concur with the general viewpoint, however I can't possibly agree with you all the time. If I keep my dissents to myself then what is the value of the blog format?
Anna,
Have you ever wondered why no one (including myself) doubted your narration of your horrible experience? Because it was credible. It sounded true. It struck us as something that could happen to any of us.
>>I don't want people to feel like they can't share themselves here, because at Skeptical Mutiny, they are liars until proven truth-tellers, if that makes any sense.
No. This does not make sense. I gave specific point-by-point reason (over two posts) as to why I thought that (s)he was not credible. That was in hindsight, as I mentioned, a mistake. I got carried away by the improbability of the story, and as Hema pointed out, did not further the discussion in any way. I am sorry about that.
However, I do not consider my behaviour as "obnoxious". I used no insults or slurs against Clueless. I did not mock his culture or any birth-related attribute about him. Yes - I did take him on his language because he deserved it. If there is a person from Bengal/Andhra who's lived there for the first 30+ years of his/her life and cannot write a proper sentence in Bengali/Telugu, I will attack the person in a similiar manner.
M. Nam
This part of my comment is a little off-topic-
I'd never read that post of Anna's. I've never been raped but have been sexually assaulted in other ways. One issue that really resonated with me was the father-daughter exchange. It's amazing how similar that is to exchanges that I've had with my father. And none of what happened made the father right in his sentiments, to me. I find it soo sad that our families have such doubt about us and sometimes then we want to actually be the bad girl that they always accuse of as. I understand it's concern, but it's irresponsible to speak like that to your children.
Moornam - First, I don't think Clueless's post was badly written... I quickly read over the posts usually while I am at work, and the grammar is what I expect from posts. I've been speaking English since a kid and certainly didn't see any discrepancy between his English writing and being brought up in the West. And secondly a blog, for me is somewhere you can quickly write what you want and not have to worry about crossing your t's and such, --- just make sure you get a point across. I read your points but none of your points in anyway would lead me to think that Clueless is lying. Especially the whole "she sounds like a girl" part - that's just gender stereotypes.
Sigh. I would neither want nor expect you to keep your dissent to yourself. I would however, love it if everyone expressed their dissent politely. Your entire comment made me want to engage with you, it was so kind. I want to see more of that, less assholery.
::
It is really depressing that some people seem to think (yes, you who were just deleted) that being rude is hip or politically incorrect and therefore contrarian and good. Political correctness is NOT the same thing as civility. The fact that I even need to type that is proof that this discussion needs to occur here (since it is, as someone else pointed out upthread, happening all over the web). It will not demean or lessen you to be polite to others; even if there are no "real" repercussions because you are just being an asshole anonymously, refrain. Just because you can be an ass doesn't mean you should.
No, this is not a sorority HOUSE where I crack a whip as alpha bitch. I emphasized "my house" so much because that is the metaphor we have used since our beginning; that this is a neverending cocktail party at our place and you are welcome to stay forever as long as you don't do anything mean to us, the monkeys or our guests. This analogy gets trotted out every time someone erroneously insists that they can be a douchebag here thanks to their right to free speech-- SM is a private site. It really is just like a party in our home. We are responsible for it and we don't have to put up with anything we don't want to...
If you knew anything about sororitites, then you would understand that as a newbie here, you are much like a pledge. So, you would be expected to observe and learn vs. mouth off pointlessly. You would also be required to respect your elders, or in this case, those who have been commenting here for months/years; they have a certain amount of credibility with the rest of us which comes in handy in situations like this and plenty more. Now be good or I'll feed you to some frat boy. And I'll pick a smelly one.
Yo- Is it a coincidence that your name anagramizes to am moron? apart from what others have commented above, what annoyed me the most was how you so coyly managed to slip in your contempt for fobs, women and teenage girls, in one breezy vacuous sentence, you kundi-chhed.
i am from tamil nadu, and i can't write a word of tamil, and i am 30 years old. attack away!
If you knew anything about sororitites, then you would understand that as a newbie here, you are much like a pledge. So, you would be expected to observe and learn vs. mouth off pointlessly. You would also be required to respect your elders, or in this case, those who have been commenting here for months/years; they have a certain amount of credibility with the rest of us which comes in handy in situations like this and plenty more. Now be good or I'll feed you to some frat boy. And I'll pick a smelly one.
oh, is that how it works in your sororities? wow, sounds just like indian society to me. no i don't know anything about sororities. i'm just a fob you see.
Check it. Here's what I've observed. Sepia Mutiny (a) has a set a fairly high threshhold of assholery that must be breached before a person is banned & (b) only the most inflammatory comments are ever deleted.
These are truths. A good example of (b) is that all the comments doubting "clueless" were allowed to stand, distasteful as they were to some of the bloggers and commenters. Anna's response, her personal response, was to write a follow-up blog post about it. I happen to think her instinct was the right one: when an innocent party is being swarmed on, something should probably be done. Comments don't get deleted for being unpopular. That can't be overstated enough. And people don't get banned simply for having reprehensible opinions. Any suggestion that this is some kind of fascistic regime is a steaming pile of cowdung. It simply doesn't line up with the facts.
I could very easily name three or four regular commenters on here that, were they on my personal blog, I would have banned without a second thought.
Nameremovedis sure as hell not welcome at my house. I haven't any use for the likes ofYouknowwho. These are open secrets. They wouldn't want me on their blogs either.But I think it is good and right that they are permitted to be here and to say their piece. No doubt many agree more with them than with me. Shit, sometimes I even surprise myself and agree with them. As long as they are not acting in a manner hostile to Sepia Mutiny's larger aim of civil discourse, it's all good in the neighborhood.
Let me get sentimental for a minute here: this is a damn good blog. The bloggers are doing a hell of a job, and some of the commenters are people I'm proud to know, even from a distance. That all of this is happening in a minimally-regulated environment, that any primate with access to a keyboard is allowed to express opinions, day after day, without the place getting completely splattered in feces, is surely a miracle of the internet age.
The other thing is that (and I'm guessing here, since I've never been to North Dakota) there's just as much debate going on inside the bunker about what's too much control and what's too much slack. You think five-plus smart Desis are going to agree with each other on everything? When was the last time that happened in real life? Nothing's set in stone. "SM Intern" doesn't run the joint. He/she must bend to the will of the committee.
Know a good thing when you see it people. It's not going to last forever, that I can guarantee. It might not even last all that long. So drink some prune juice y'all, and let the shit flow.
The male and female body are anatomically, physiologically and hormonally different, it just doesn't seem far fetched the brains are too.
there are average male female differences on a whole of metrics, but the precise averages (means) exhibit variance. if the two distributions overlap A LOT (e.g., male and female SAT Math distributions) you need to be cautious about inferring to one individual based on a group average. over the long term you'll end up more right then wrong, but if you are wrong 40% of the time does it really help using that generalization as a heuristic? you can use other priors to increase your confidence in your hypothesis.
As a long time reader I am disappointed, I am not going to replay what others have said in new words. I expect this kind of behavior from a noob, not from a long timer.
Anna, Thanks for having a sense of humor even when things are so murky. And clueless thanks for sharing your story with us.
If everyone on this board has to maintain impeccable political correctness and manners then this blog no longer remains as interesting for me
if ceasing and desisting in the sort of behavior anna linked to consists of "impeccable political correctness" i must wonder as to what your standards are? and if cleaning house of that sort of behavior renders the blog uninteresting to you i strong suspect that anna could care less. there is always the superficial if you're jonesing for middle-skool blog action (do not click if you have problems with seeing hulk hogan's daughter's abs).
oho, i see now. this is a fanclub of some sort. well have fun with mom superior kiddos. i gotta go make those rotis now for pati-parmeshwarji (husband-god for the non-"indian" speaking folk here). ta.
Yes.
Yes, it is.
And all of my "fans" have to prove their devotion BY NOT BEING ASSHOLES TO EACH OTHER. Horridly unreasonable, innit? Now scamper off and do focus, I don't want your employment of sarcasm to in any way impede the roundness of your rotis.
begtodiffer:
Mr Kobayashi:
So much word to the above! I think people should feel free enough to call people out, not just for being trolls (which are frequently obvious), but also sockpuppets (not so difficult to tell). That's my only issue with this latest policy - that people will figure it's better to not call someone on something they've written that just sounds off. (For example, what if I identify myself as malayalee, but keep referring to the state of Karela?)
That said, when SM Intern came out and said Clueless (or any other Poster du jour) was not a troll, (s)he would know, so continuing to bash Clueless after that? not cool.
the thing is that if you are a "regular," with an email or a blog link, you are "putting yourself out there." there are only so many debits you can take out of the system in terms of letting loose and being a prig before people will turn on you and get tired of your indulging your personal whims and shitting in the ecosystem. people who drop in anonymously don't have an investment because they come and go and they're just sampling. a registration system is often a good filter because those who want to make bitchy/snarky comments can't usually be bothered to take the time and effort to go through those steps. in contrast, those who have registered will tend to make bitchy/snarky comments, but they show that they will invest time to register (small as that investment is), and so there will be some incentive to hold back on occasion.
of course the "regulars" and the SM crew will note the familiarity in the arguments made by some anonymous folk arguing for "free speech." they've been made before, but they don't recall because they weren't here, and they won't be here in the future either (another generation of anonymous participants will make the exact same comments before they go on their way).
What Kobayashi said.
That is all.
Peace.
i'm glad this discussion is taking place. there's no need to be hostile or rude on sm. it's kinda scary. scariness = making me want to hide and not comment.
Not long ago, clueless was consider a very great troll. some cultural patriots had targeted him as a serial denigrator of punjabis. another person had questioned his mental stability when he made some remarks about sikhs. but he opened himself up, and that immediately absolved him in the eyes of many. Moor Nam, imo, made some very tactless remarks in his interrogation, but he's apologized for most of them, so no need to rehash. I agree with Anna's post in its entirety. community preservation is a very difficult thing, and, as Kobayashi says, "nothing lasts forever."
A N N A,
I take hope among the regular SM readers to preserve civility. The more familiar a reader becomes with this community, generally his/her civility improves (I think).
This is a general observation completely unconnected to this particular discussion but relevant to the larger issue.
This is not entirely true, an example. It's all good, you're entitled to your distastes. I just felt compelled to express that I do not think the standards here are always so value neutral.
The search feature on the home page -- or directly from google, e.g. a search query of KarmaByte site:sepiamutiny.com -- is a good approximation. It is not a bad idea to look at the history of comments before accusing someone of trollery/deception.
Thanks for that tip dipanjan. But still it would be nice if I could just click the handle and be able to view the history. Of course it is always easier to wish than to implement.
Espressa, I'm not sure if this will mean anything to you or if it will improve a long-festering situation at all, but since I'm all cried-out and far too fucking open this evening (and that's when I'm sober!) I'm going to just put it out there: I regret that your 55 was deleted. I am sorry. If that were the theme this week and you had submitted it, I would have pushed back. Because I don't like being a hypocrite. And I know that often, we are all over-extended so whatever time we have left to give isn't enough and that means that things are done unevenly.
But you were a "regular" and someone I enjoyed reading. And I saw how you drifted away after that and I didn't blame you, but I did miss you, especially on certain Fridays.
ANNA, thanks, I truly appreciate that. It wasn't my 55, but I thought it was fun. Not everyone's cup of tea, surely, but I was annoyed with the condemnation of it. But that was a long time ago and now it's Friday night... and time for a drink. cheers.
mr. kobayashi:
that is the best quote ever.
thank you.
Far be it from me to take credit. I owe the phrase to a certain widely-celebrated American musical-theorist and philosopher.
;)
Ahem: I don't understand why there isn't a registration process for new users. It really seems like the smartest solution to all of this; I think it would have a beneficial effect on this place, as well.
I'd just like to add that I just found this site a couple days ago, and have really started to like it, although sometimes I find it hard to relate to y'all. I'd say I'm a coconut, but I hate that term. Keep on truckin', Anna.
Wow, I felt so bad about the other post that I didn't even realize this one existed. What a downer before Picnic Day. Look, I just want everyone to know that I really do feel bad about what I said. I had/have no right to judge Clueless' story. But if there's any good that could come from that situation, it's that I learned from it. Going forward, I'll remember this situation before pointing fingers.
I'll definitely remember this.
I'd be down for a typekey type registration service, or hell, with the amount of threads generated here a V Bulletin type messageboard. If it means some cash, I'd be willing to chip in. Keeping quality content is paramount and as I've learned on some other messageboards, quality editing and keeping a place coherent is part of the maturation process of the web.
Chilling but true. This is the only blog I read (other than Amardeep's from time to time) and it'll be a sad but inevitable day when it folds. Manish already left and some of the others look like they're getting drained. The value that I've gotten here in terms of interesting discussions, getting to know a bunch of folks (even if in a limited way), learning a whole lot about many different things, getting to share my opinion and thoughts, reading some excellent writing from Siddhartha and others, and just the entertainment and enjoyment factors, can not be overstated. And of course the sense of community with other desis, both 1st and 2nd gen, diasporic and not. I too have noticed that a lot of the former 'regulars' don't comment here much anymore. I can't believe they're not still lurking but I guess that could very well be the case. I hope this blog has many good years ahead of it, but regardless of how long it lasts, THANK YOU, bloggers, for this. And without naming names, thanks to all the commenters who also make this a worthwhile place.
Anna, kudos for trying to address this issue.
I was never a terribly prolific commenter, but some time back I stopped seeing SM comments as a place to engage in discussion because it seemed that the then-reigning group of commenters would jump to argue predictably standard positions, in contrast to when I first started reading the site, a couple of years back. I wonder if the comment threads back in what I see as the good old days of productive discussion actually look different than those today?
(However, the blog POSTS have remained wonderful.)
Dear Anna and the SM crew,
I just wanted to say thank you for welcoming me into your whare (home). I've been reading SM for the best part of a year now and only recently have started commenting because this community feels so open and welcoming of all (even if I'm in a completely different country to you). In fact Anna, it was one of your previous comments about everyone being welcome here that made me feel confident enough to join the discussion (especially as it was my home being talked about at the time). The majority of Mutineers seem to be a pretty cool bunch, I may not always agree with them but they have made the debate interesting and I've learnt a lot while I've lurked here. Please don't be disheartened, sometimes people just suck, can't do much about them sadly, but then, they only make us stronger (I'm starting to sound like my mother!).
Thank you for being here.
Arohanui.
x
Being a moderator at a big discussion board and for a long running discussion list - I've given up being surprised at the sporadic rudeness of some posters (especially given the anonymous nature of on-line posting.)
But I am sorry that anyone has to be the target of any such rudeness. Personally I have no problems with registration, but I can understand others hesitation about such things.
I always include a blog link, just because it's who I am which I don't hide. Of course then people learn that I actually own the He-Man & She-Ra box sets and will never take me seriously again. ;-)
I've got to say, though, that there's some smoke and mirrors up in here. What, exactly, would required registration contribute to the strength of this site? Let's look at the specific situation under consideration: a well-known long time commenter was taken to task by a number of well-known long-time commenters.
If there were a registration regime in place, the exact same thing would have happened. So, to me, this is like going into the hospital with a stomachache and coming out with a vasectomy. Like, gee, thanks, but I've still got the stomach ache.
Now, one strong advantage for required registration would be that it lightens the work-load for the bunker-wallahs. There would be less of a clean-up burden, less egregious spamming and drive-by trollery. But that crap gets cleaned up anyway. This debate is not about that. This is about the rules of discourse among established commenters. Registration is strictly a red-herring.
I mention this because I think a more regimented commenting policy, at least as far as registration goes, will have two distinct disadvantages:
1) A loss of the drive-by positive contributions. These are not regulars at SM, but they are people who have something valuable to say about a specific post. Things like "Oh, this guy is my cousin, he isn't really like that" or "I went to college with this woman, she's always been a genius" or "This describes my family to the last detail" or "I'm a lawyer at Guantanamo Bay."
2) Driving away the many regulars who really don't care to be identified or contacted. This blog could potentially lose Red Snapper, Kavita, MD, Neale, Branch Dravidian, Spoor Lam, ShallowThinker, GujuDude, Manju, WhoseGodisItAnyways, DDiA, Amitabh and (as the guy in the tuxedo and toupe says) many many more. Judge for yourself is that's worth the advantage of fewer spills on aisle 3.
In other words, anonymity has its value. A person is not a troll simply because they don't want you all up in their private business. On the flipside, some of the rudest and most unreasonable people on the site do provide links to their email and homepages.
Just something to think about before you erect x-ray machines all over the place. That would be the easy solution but, in my opinion, the wrong one.
People LOVE giving away their rights for the illusion of greater security...
Amitabh @ 81 and Mr Kobayashi @ 85: Word, brothers!
I too have noticed that a lot of the former 'regulars' don't comment here much anymore. I can't believe they're not still lurking but I guess that could very well be the case
I am not sure if too many regulars have gone away. I have been commenting here since November, 2004 and lurking since almost Aug-September, 2004 and most of the regulars are still here. Initially the regulars were mostly the bloggers themselves commenting plus a few people like Razib, GC, Punjabi boy, MD. I think the core group of commenters is still here.
You know, I went away from this blog for a while because I was busy at work (and, just accepted a new position in Chitown! Yeah), and when I came back after a long while had a comment deleted. I got a bit miffed, being a long-time commenter who had posted a lot more inflammatory stuff in my day, until Ennis told me I was being a knuckle-head (but, in a good Ennis-y way : ) )and that SM had had problems with the comment section and some comments were getting deleted. I have to say, I think that the threads are mostly okay, but maybe I haven't been privy to the most egregious examples. I wonder, too, if, in the early days the craziness was so new that no-one paid as much attention to the commenting? I mean, I tended to scroll past stuff and just pick out what I wanted to read and my comments were longer and more impassioned. I didn't know the characters yet, so I had to explain myself more. Maybe, I should try and go back to that, and not use short hand, assuming people will know about me already. I don't really have an answers to any of this, but this is probably the only blog I'd register for :) Oh, wait, I think I do have that typekey thing but I never sign in with it. Hmmm...
MD: congrats on your new position :)
very excited for you...
say hi to the 'bean' when you see it in the park for me..
While I completely agree with the gist of your message, I don't think the analogy is particularly accurate. I think it's more like if you and your friends rented out space for public discourse, put up signs in the front advertising for public entry. It demands civility, respect and all that fun stuff, but not the same as a party in your home. Subtle difference, but I'm a stickler for details.
I'm a stickler for details as well, so with all due respect...no. We didn't advertise this site anywhere. And as someone who was one of the first to say, "Hey, this party sounds like a great idea guys! Let's do it! I'm in." before spending considerable amounts of time moving furniture, lighting votives, deciding on appetizers, creating a playlist for the iPod and buying far too many Solo cups (for a cocktail party! The horror, the horror!), I think I would know. When I signed on, I signed on for that, not what you outlined.
Here is why the distinction is significant to me; it is more like a party in our home because douchebags are still less likely to act up in your house vs. a "rented" space. I know. I threw those parties a decade ago in both venues. And now, I'd like to get back on message wrt this very important discussion about the future of this community, and what it will take to sustain such an unlikely dream.
As it were. It's true that douchebags are more likely to hold back in a house party, but it's only to not risk classification (and yes, it is a subjective classification) as a douchebag.
The problem I have with the analogy is, the intent of a house party is to entertain people you tacitly approve of. The barrier of entry is much higher than it is here, a neutral space has a lower barrier of entry. As someone stated earlier, it seems the benefits (the occasional profound comment by anonymous contributors), are outweighing the costs (douchebag cleaning every few.. months? weeks? days?) of such a low barrier of entry.
And quite frankly, there is a form of advertising going on here. Maybe you didn't actively intend it, but it's happening. Offering direct links to posts, links to other blogs, other blogs linking to you, friendster profiles, is all an encouragement to enter, tantamount to advertising. I don't even remember how I heard about your site, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't invited by one of the founding fathers/mothers.
I'm honestly not really sure why anyone continues to bother engaging with MoorNam. He makes broad, sweeping statements without backing them up with links or references, even when asked explicitly. In fact in one thread, he was asked to provide a reference for something he said; he didn't, and in fact went on to ask someone else to back up a statement.
I've always just thought of him as a permanent troll (no doubt some of you think of me in this light too, but like MoorNam, I don't really have a huge issue with that).
That said, his level of assholery in this particular instance took me aback, and I was pretty surprised and amused by his ideas of masculinity. I suspect that if some of us dudes here didn't blog under our first names, he'd think we wuz all girlz.
Also, Anna:
Ugh, what?
I'm with HMF on this one, I think. Sure, SM requires civility and kindness (can't people just stay quiet if they only have hatred to spew? why does the web have different rules for being an asshole?) , but if you truly want it to be private, set up a password system and let in only approved guests. Otherwise, it's a public forum and anyone can just drift on in.
Oh, and what Vivek said. :)
but doesn't engaging with moornam hold a special entertainment value--as a pet Orientalist (in tone if not in content)?
You know, that almost-annoying contrarian voice which can't substantiate any of it's claims--a constant reminder of what not to do?
How did I offend you this time, Vivek? I couldn't parse the "ugh" and don't want to assume anything. The "smelly frat boy" bit was a joke, but apparently you either didn't approve of it or interpret it as such?
.
And Ismat, I am disappointed. Honestly, reading your comment makes me want to rip my hair out. If that's your take on what I was painstakingly trying to explain then I am one colossal fuck-up wrt my communication skills.
Let me try one more time, though at this point it feels futile:
I do not want this to be a club. It is, however, a private site, whether or not you agree with that or feel comfortable with declarations of it as such. Its status as a private site is why we have the ability to keep it relatively asshole-free. HMF's take on it is simultaneously flawed and correct-- this IS a space which requires "tacit approval" in that if we don't like the tone of your comments or your flagrant disregard for our well-stated and obvious rules, we will disapprove. And ban and delete. Often, this inspires people to complain that we are being too harsh etc, but after years of doing this, we're better at seeing around corners and we act pre-emptively because of it.
How many times do I have to say it? Everyone is welcome here, until they prove that they shouldn't be. But that doesn't mean that I am going to set the "barrier" low, no, not at all. We do not tolerate what other