Not for the faint-hearted
I should probably start off by saying that Pickled Politics is not really for insecure and defensive people.
Admittedly the anniversary of 7/7 and Britain’s general media / political climate has put Muslim issues to the forefront and we end up discussing them a lot when maybe people want some lighter or non-religious topics. But then it is difficult to ignore current affairs when you’re a current affairs magazine/blog.
This space was set up from day one to challenge the legitimacy and power afforded to “community leaders”, and I make no excuse for that. It is worthwhile re-iterating that occasionally for our new readers. And there are various reasons we take this stance - if you read what we write I’m sure it will become abundantly clear soon enough.
This post is partly inspired by Abhi at Sepia Mutiny’s post on Saturday on ‘Jingoism in the blogosphere’. You may notice we get lots of that too. Insecure people become extremely defensive when you point out the short-comings in their government / religious organisation / football team - whatever.
We don’t work like that. Self-criticism is fundamental to making sense of the world and making progress and we should not, and do not, shy away from it. In fact we positively encourage you to come here and take apart our articles in a constructive manner. Without debate we become stale. And smelly. And green.
People who don’t like debate try and shut it down by calling names such as racist, Islamophobic, traitor, uncle tom, punkahwallah and whatever else. That just makes us all the more powerful. It also makes us laugh.
Sunny:
“People who don’t like debate try and shut it down by calling names such as racist, Islamophobic, traitor, uncle tom, punkahwallah and whatever else. That just makes us all the more powerful. It also makes us laugh.”
May I call to attention a distinction? Perhaps I am mistaken, and I will concede if it is so, but I find a difference between calling a commentator a “racist” and specifically saying, “Your assertions are racist”. Examples:
Example #1:
Person A: “Muslims are terrorists” or “Arabs are a bunch of terrorists”.
Me: “Your assertions are racist and bigoted”.
as opposed to:
Example #2:
Person A: “Muslims are terrorists” or “Arabs are a bunch of terrorists”.
Me: “You are a racist and bigot”.
I have done example #1 because in my mind, example #2 is unacceptable for the very reason that I do not know any of the commentators personally, and furthermore, I agree with your statement that it shuts down debate (like saying, “You are an anti-American” when American policies are critiqued).
Like I said, some may see this as no difference, and I may be wrong.
“That just makes us all the more powerful. It also makes us laugh.”
Indeed it does.
To expand on my comment:
I do think it is legitimate to call out racist attitudes. When someone argues that because Muslims are being born at an increasing rate in Europe and that they may be recruited to become “future jihadis and palistinans” [sic], thereby sanctioning measures for non Muslims to “protect ones national culture”, I believe this is a racist statement.
I am thinking along the lines of the post you wrote about “Arab racism” and the blog I had written about racism towards South Asians in Dubai. I do not think this shuts down debate.
Hullo
Came upon your blog. Nice read.
You might like to visit this blog out of Calcutta:
cuckooscall.blogspot.com
best
rama
Desi I, I think that you make a fair point and that it is not that difficult to distinguish from invective and a valid observation.
All kinds of objectionable opinions are expressed on the net. How does one deal with them on one’s own blog?
I think that the blog owners have a responsibility to:
1. take care not to sensationalise, indulge in partisanship or post ill-informed opinions themselves if they wish to avoid more trolls and flamewars than strictly necessary. Sunny has made mistakes and been called on them; he is mature enough to make corrections and regulars know that he is acting in good faith.
2. The blog owners have to establish the parameters of discourse, make that known to commenters and act CONSISTENTLY on cases that abuse this policy. I’d favour a policy that tends towards as much free expression as possible, even if some ugly bigotted attitudes emerge from it. It is in the end instructive for all to know who is capable of what. What need not be tolerated is anything that has legal repercussions.
Sunny’s policy on censorship is fairly tolerant I think (who have you banned anyway, Sunny?)and this is a strength of PP.
Abhi posts about “Jingoes” and refers to a specific recent incident : the one about the indian army’s alleged massacre of 36 sikhs in kashmir.
He writes : I was accosted by jingoes (not only on this site but on another one).
Let’s take a look at what actually happened and compare SM’s and PP’s experience since he is undoubtedly referring to PP in the above.
Sunny’s initial article - echoed by a similar article on SM- had a gaping big hole in credibility which was soon pointed out by commenters. Sunny made corrections but was not as ready to withdraw the initial allegation in full, and debate ensued. Fair enough. There were trolls and there were serious commenters. Abhi got ‘accosted’ mainly by myself for what he wrote, the dubious link and the poor information he provided. I did not see a single ‘jingo’ going after poor sad Abhi, unless you see ME as jingoistic in which case I’d take you to task for falling into the very trap you’d warn us against.
Over a hundred posts and the issue - for the serious commenters (and I think, Sunny) anyway, reached some some sort of sublimation and broad agreement.
Over at SM, there were the same sort of protestations as on PP about the ‘facts’ presented. Abhi shut down the comments after 20 posts (8 of them his) because he chose to shut down criticism of himself, rather than the Indian army. He now chooses to revisit the sorry episode reframing it in his own terms as us-reasonable-bloggers- against-jingoes which I think is massively dishonest. I will not be surprised if this arrogant and patronising attitude pisses off more people and yes, attracts more trolls (the smell of blood is ever so alluring!).
I quite dislike SM for many reasons and rarely post there. On one recent occasion I did so - because the subject matter, hindu temple destructions in malaysia- was something i had a great deal of knowledge about- was abruptly shut down after about 80 posts. there were more serious commenters and only about 2 trolls who neatly sidelined anyway but an abrupt shutdown anyway. No warning, no indication of what was objectionable or what blog policy had been contravened. Just a simple shutdown. Quite illustrative of the SM mentality of thin-skinnedness.
I hope Sunny never succumbs to that level of insecurity and intellectual vapidity.
Desi’s got a good point. It’s one thing highlighting the points in a person’s argument that one disagrees with or has a specific comment on, and another to ‘attack’ or label the person themselves.
the distinction is important.
“NOT FOR THE INSECURE OR SENSITIVE”
then why do you delete posts that prove you’re a lying sack of shite sunny?
Sunny, PP and SM are different.
What Abhi at SM continues to do is insult people. If you object, you are labelled ‘Jingoes’ and banned. He is not interested in a debate. He sells t-shirts ($25) with the Indian map without parts of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh on SM. Now if you think I’m a ‘Jingo’ for objecting to it, go ahead.
“Sunny, PP and SM are different.
What Abhi at SM continues to do is insult people. If you object, you are labelled ‘Jingoes’ and banned. He is not interested in a debate. He sells t-shirts ($25) with the Indian map without parts of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh on SM. Now if you think I’m a ‘Jingo’ for objecting to it, go ahead.”
Mutiny:
-firstly since it’s Abhi’s blog don’t you feel he should be able to sell whatever t-shirts he likes? SM is a privately run blog, and does not and has not ever claimed to be completely unbiased. In fact, no writing ever is.
-secondly, where exactly has Abhi continually insulted people? If you read his post on jingoism he called for a discussion about it, just as with any of the bloggers on SM as they know how many people visit their site and write their own thoughts in comments.
I’m not saying the blog’s perfect or anything, but I don’t think it’s very fair to knock people down when they’re doing something on their own, in their free time, and it’s really successful too. I mean no one agree with all of the SM bloggers but enough people visit their site to help them achieve their aim of providing a South Asian communal voice.
FalseFlag:
the fact that Sunny left your comment on there shows that the moderators on this site are much bigger people than you are. Even your name reeks of the self-victimising martyr-complex that makes others laugh.
“indulge in partisanship”
So no one should ever blog in support or opposition to anything?
Apropos to many of the posts right here from both fascinating and creepy folk, I’ve recently ammended my view on what you can or can’t say to me as a first generation immigrant living in your country.
Anything you like.
Really. As long as there is no aggression that leads to fear for my safety and a willingness to debate viewpoints, go for it.
I used to think the likes of Nick Griffin and Bernard Manning should be gagged but fuck it, say what you want, knock yourself out.
All I know is that I live in a country where no one dares call me a Paki on a train or in a pub, not because they’re scared of me, but because the average English bystander won’t allow it.
So call me names, mock my people, excercise your freedom of speech. As long as you don’t have a baseball bat, I have the wit and strength of character to excercise mine and laugh at you
A good time to call back Amir, all is forgiven?
mirax - I think your #5. I don’t think Abdi likes you - and he comes accross as a person with a fragile ego that needs massaging by SM , but he will hold a grudge. About sums it up as far a SM is concerned.
I would just add this - I note that what comes across more than once is that the administators at SM say they work full time and run the blog as a “hobby”. Well that is fine, but then don’t complain when people question the sites ability to hold a robust debate if it is only run as a hobby. Perhaps its best to just stick to the price of sushi and other cultural matters. I think that is the at the core of site. They run it as a hobby - but can it be done as a hobby and really do justice to themselves and any serious political issues raised?
I am sure Sunny doesn’t earn any money from PP to retire on, so perhaps it too could be described as a “hobby”. But I don’t think so - because he has opened up the site for debate and keeps a light hand on the tiller, rather than uses this site to promote his own ego, unless of course he is a masochist and like his ego battered and bruised.
Justforfun
OOps - nearly forgot - I would also like to add my agreement to Desi Italiana good point in #1
“I have done example #1 because in my mind, example #2 is unacceptable for the very reason that I do not know any of the commentators personally, and furthermore”
Given our good faith - that someone who says something racist or bigoted might not be a racist but rather uninformed or naive - one would expect that we engage with this person and try to dispel any misconceptions, rather than saying flat out that such comments can be interpreted as racist or bigoted. There is a difference between bigotry that stems from ignorance and the one that stems from pure malice.
Mirax, on the temple cleansing thread, I closed it when you started calling people “fuckwit” and so on. Very difficult to return a conversation to an intelligent level after you start using language like that in response to satirists.
It isn’t about having a thin skin, it’s about the quality of the talk.
Why do I hit the submit button before checking my words
- bugger - I must take this seriously.
As it should be I think -
mirax - I think your #5 about sums it up as far a SM is concerned . I don’t think Abdi likes you - and he comes accross as a person with a fragile ego that needs massaging by SM and can hold hold a grudge for at least 2 days - perhaps longer and enought to write a pretty poor defense of himself.
I would just add this - I note that what comes across more than once is that the administators at SM say they work full time and run the blog as a “hobby”. Well that is fine, but then they shouldn’t complain when people question the sites ability to hold a robust debate if it is only run as a hobby. Perhaps they best just stick to the price of sushi and other cultural matters. I think that is the at the core of site. They run it as a hobby - but can it be done as a hobby and really do justice to themselves and any serious political issues raised?
I am sure Sunny doesn’t earn any money from PP to retire on, so perhaps it too could be described as a “hobby”. But I don’t think so - because he has opened up the site for debate and keeps a light hand on the tiller, rather than uses this site to promote his own ego, unless of course he is a masochist and like his ego battered and bruised.
Justforfun
“Muslims are terrorists” or “Arabs are a bunch of terrorists”.
Um, But Desi, that is racist
Re: post 17: translated as…
Terrorists are Muslims and a majority of them are Arabs
If you think something, say it. What’s the point sugar coating it? I’d rather a racist says what’s on his mind instead of pretending not to be one. Once their views are out on the public forum, the public can then put them in their place
Sounds fair to me
“He sells t-shirts ($25) with the Indian map without parts of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh on SM”
Awesome! Maybe I was too harsh on SM
I might have to buy one!
Seriously, Hindu/Muslim fanaticism is one of the great threats to the progress of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, and what’s worse this menace has even infiltrated much of the South Asian diaspora. We must confront this scourge head on, without fear of being labelled sell-outs or fakes. It is our duty as moderates.
All community leaders should be shot.
The majority of Muslims aren’t Arabs.
Justforfun,
You say: “Perhaps they best just stick to the price of sushi and other cultural matters. I think that is the at the core of site. They run it as a hobby - but can it be done as a hobby and really do justice to themselves and any serious political issues raised?”
I would be perfectly happy if SM were known for a focus on trivial “cultural matters” like south asian music, literature, art, theater, film, and history.
Still, it’s a little rich to get a lecture on “serious political issues” from someone who calls himself “justforfun.” Don’t you find that to be a little ironic?
That’s a fair response to their readers, many of whom don’t realize that SM is a lot like a friend’s gemutlich apartment in Manhattan; in order to afford said apartment, friend is an over-worked lawyer or banker, which means that while they are more than happy to let you stay for as long as you like, they can’t be around 24/7 (rent calls) and thus need you to not act like an utter retard, which is really only the proper thing to do, as a frequent house guest.
If you have a full-time job, I would love to see you do better with the same situation. It’s massively easy to lob criticism at those who make a contribution, but doing so is no contribution itself.
explosion in manhattan alert
Firstly I agree with what many of you have said, and secondly the discussion seems to be about pitting PP against SM when it is definitely not the case. We are complementary rather than competing blogs and people may like either for whatever reason or both, I’m not fussed. So I’d rather not make it into that. I think Abhi’s initial post on the Clinton book saga was more balanced than my own initial post so I’m not going to fault him for that. They have a stricter policy on comments and sometimes I think I should have one too but I’m dedicated to freedom of speech (unless it kills conversations when trolls come here with racist or conspiracy theory garbage).
I have the wit and strength of character to excercise mine and laugh at you
That’s my kismet!
I forgot humility, Mirax
And a big cock, but I felt that was both inappropriate and something of a whopper
Ah amardeep, I called two trolls - one hindu and the other your much tolerated spoorlam- fuckwits, if i recall. That was the sole basis of your shutdown??? that one word against against the substance of all other constructive and balanced (against muslim-bashing)information I provided. Whoa! This gets more comical by the minute.
>>Still, it’s a little rich to get a lecture on “serious political issues” from someone who calls himself “justforfun.” Don’t you find that to be a little ironic?
Not at all. you judge the quality of debate by its substance, not by its moniker. The very fact that you indulged in this cheap shot puts paid to your lofty protestations to be aiming for a higher order of communication- was that not your justification for censorship?
Ban cencorship
Cencor bans
Amardeep - perhaps not ironic enough eh
Justforfun
PS - I never said “trivial” - I might of thought it though but would be too polite to mention it .. but then as you mentioned it, perhaps we must be of the same mind. ;-).
Communis Rixatrix - full time job - me ? never - I have others to work for me on my dude ranch. Can’t use my real name as I’d be for ever just answering begging letters.
Seriously - If people want to raise serious issues on their blog, ( I presume we are talking about consenting adults here’) then they want the world to see them in the light of their blog. If they then get upset with the way things pan out and the way they are portrayed then who is to blame? I myself think its best to just stick to the issues and keep things anonymous so we don’t have to deal with personalities.
Justforfun
““Muslims are terrorists” or “Arabs are a bunch of terrorists”.
Um, But Desi, that is racist
“
If a certain someone sees a tall Asian with a backpack in the tube and leaves it just in case, isn’t he acting under that impression?
Mirax, it was a defensive shot, and not really a cheap one. At any rate, there isn’t much of substance in Justforfun’s comment — we discuss politics at SM quite seriously and quite often. Siddhartha’s recent post on race and identity issues is of a piece with an excellent PP post last week covering similar ground. And not to toot my own horn, but I recently did pretty serious posts on Niall Ferguson’s approach to empire (also along the lines of a PP post, though with my own academic interests on display), and William Dalrymple’s research into the history of Mughal India.
On Temple Cleansing,
You made a few useful comments on that thread, but you quickly became a tyrant. It wasn’t one word, it was your pompous tone and condescending approach to other participants in the discussion. “Don’t bother addessing me,” you said to someone. I closed it and let you have the last word, because I think that kind of pointless snark speaks for itself.
I shut down the thread to stop just one troll — you.
let the good times troll
Sunny Firstly I agree with what many of you have said, and secondly the discussion seems to be about pitting PP against SM when it is definitely not the case. We are complementary rather than competing blogs and people may like either for whatever reason or both, I’m not fussed. So I’d rather not make it into that. I think Abhi’s initial post on the Clinton book saga was more balanced than my own initial post so I’m not going to fault him for that. They have a stricter policy on comments and sometimes I think I should have one too but I’m dedicated to freedom of speech (unless it kills conversations when trolls come here with racist or conspiracy theory garbage).
I understand - but every statue needs a pedastal to stand out in the crowd.
Justforfun
rave on John Troll
>>If people want to raise serious issues on their blog, ( I presume we are talking about consenting adults here’) then they want the world to see them in the light of their blog. If they then get upset with the way things pan out and the way they are portrayed then who is to blame?
I’d second that JFF (by the way can I have your email so I can send you a begging letter?). If you blog and invite comments on top of that,it is a bit rich to get huffy about the nature of the comments. Even the ownership angle (I do as I see fit cause I pay for this) is compromised to my mind when a blog asks for donations from its readership to keep it going like that daily ablution guy and I believe, SM too.
Further,a blog can also be greatly enriched by its commenters (I actually come here for Kismet, not Sunny). It takes quite a lot to be a popular blog without allowing comments - think Geras.
“(I actually come here for Kismet, not Sunny)”
not me
I am so very pleased to be acknowledged as a TROLL on SM.
here’s the thread if you guys want to learn for yourself what counts as trolling on SM :
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003482.html
As for snarkiness, I own to that. Better than a fuckwit anyday. SM prefers fuckwits - why doesn’t that surprise me?
well Raz if you were going to buy that t-shirt from SM…
>>it was your pompous tone and condescending approach to other participants in the discussion. “Don’t bother addessing me,” you said to someone. I closed it and let you have the last word, because I think that kind of pointless snark speaks for itself.
Exactly two comments to two different trolls - one Hindu and one anti-hindu.Don’t take my word or Papa amarDEEP’s for it- read for yourself. But papa amarDEEP ALWAYS knows best, you see. Some more snark to get his panties in more of a twist.
But something’s missing in his explanation : LOGIC. If I was indeed the troll, isnt the reasonable and logical action banning me rather than shutting down the entire discussion? Come back with an answer to this Papa AmarDEEP, if you can.
“I actually come here for Kismet, not Sunny”
Oh well done babe. Now he’s going to make me sleep in the wet patch
Mirax - what’s with the papa amardeep rubbish? SM have their own comments policy and it works for them. They have a right to it. On barficulture we have a much stricter comments policy where any thread descending into abuse gets shut down because otherwise it encourages other people to do the same. The age range is there much lower than at PP hence the difference. Some people like that atmosphere, some people prefer the openness here. End of story.
We’ve gone completely off topic now.
I actually come here for Kismet, not Sunny
Mirax is just playing hard to get. Heh. Oh whoops, I’ve shown my inherent sexism again.
I was going to restrict my commenting to the Sepia Mutiny blog, but I have to politely respond to post #43.
Mirax,
As you know, generally I’m on very good terms with you and I usually agree with most of what you say. However, before you continue to patronise Amardeep any further, I would suggest that you click on the link taking you to his homepage and then click on “Official Bio” on the top right-hand side. Familiarise yourself with the information detailed there.
Then take a deep breath and consider exactly who you are speaking to and whether your manner is appropriate. I’m not suggesting you should be sycophantic or deferential (especially if you are convinced that you are “right” and if you strongly disagree with something another commenter says); however, in these situations it’s usually beneficial to take the other party’s credentials into consideration and amend one’s approach accordingly, at least if one wishes to continue a constructive dialogue.
Courtesy and good manners never hurt anyone.
>>SM have their own comments policy and it works for them. They have a right to it
Sunny, do read. That’s not the issue at all.I don’t begrudge them this - as much as I do not quite agree with the details. However it is quite valid to question them on how they apply it and - to ask if their policy really fulfills their stated objective. So far Amardeep’s answer is unsatisfactory and abhi’s actions on the thread mentioned appear counter-productive- a debate that was shut down on the topic last week has been re-opened with no material difference in the quality of the posts.
And no, we are not off-topic at all.
Wow, I gotta get me one of them SM t-shirts!
The issue is not credentials; the issue is attitude and the consistency with which these so called strict comment policies are applied. Over the past few months SM authors have taken to viciously attack commenters with opinions other than theirs. The unceremoniously shut down comments when the debate becomes to hot to handle, stricter comment policy is a guise to shut down people with an opinion. Debate is not encouraged and like it is mentioned before ban the trolls not shut down the whole debate if you really want to hear opinions.
Thank you Jai for the comment. I do know who Amardeep is. I don’t have to read his bio. I’d like to know how that is relevant though.
I need not be gratuitously rude to him, I take that point. I was being so because I sensed a lack of honesty and reasonableness on his part. Shouldn’t I call the great man on it?
“Shouldn’t I call the great man on it?”
How may I help?
I was going to restrict my commenting to the Sepia Mutiny blog,
Why is that Jai?
Mirax and anon - People will always accuse others of inconsistent comment policies. We get accused of it all the time so its not surprising SM does too. HEll, even CIF gets accused though they allow much more rubbish than I would.
Jai - Amardeep is ‘under construction’
I can see he is an Assistant Professor of English so he must have a bit of chalk time under his belt. I am sure anything Mirax says has nothing compared to live students.
Jai - I think you have probably embarrassed him now - we’ll expect so much more and won’t let his standards slip
however, in these situations it’s usually beneficial to take the other party’s credentials into consideration and amend one’s approach accordingly, - I’ll just have to beg to differ. As I say - anonymity is often best if one just wants to have a debate. Experts in their field are fine as known figures but ….. there are just so few experts around nowadays. In the UK - I blame it on the Polytechnics - eversince they became universities - everyone is an expert it seems …
Off to cook the kids their tea ..
Justforfun
On SM, you once asked SpoorLam, “where’s your contribution to the debate” and then accused him of being “as limited as those who stoke (his) ire”. THIS is your “unlimited” contribution?
If by “fuckwit” you mean people who don’t carry on as you have in this thread and on the one you single-handedly shut down, then by all means yes, that’s what we prefer. That’s what our readers overwhelmingly prefer, too, and that’s why we do what we do. Indifference would be the crueler reaction, by the way. Why are you so exercised about this?
Sunny lucidly explained why discussions are shut, so I won’t. We are going on our third year and we’ve learned the hard way how these things turn out and that’s why we move more quickly than we used to, though it’s amusing to learn that some people are thrilled by this, as it gives them a reason to whine about how we only moderate when we’re being disagreed with…an immature claim which is utterly untrue. We don’t even agree with each other, so I assure you we can tolerate dissent quite easily.
As for banning you, I agree completely and your wish is my pleasure. Sigh. I’m sure the ad hominem attacks are already forming; fret not, after wincing over this thread with my morning coffee, I made sure to don my Aegis-derived gauntlets today.
So essentially you are saying that though you are not required to be rude, you choose to do so anyway because you feel he deserves it. Calling someone on something does not require that sort of tone and belligerence, unless undermining your own credibility is a goal. I sense a lack of reasonableness on your part, but I don’t speak to you that way.
It’s sad to read some of the comments here, to know that the same stupid proclivities we decry in our “Uncles” are alive and well with our own gen. This isn’t a zero-sum game. Two brown blogs can exist without threatening or using the other “as a pedestal”; that, along with the glorious freedom to choose to waste your time in a fuckwit-free space, is the beauty of the interweb.
It’s ok, Sunny. I will drop this. I made a decision never to post on SM again- this was about a fortnight ago- and that’s the only effective option open to me, so no problem there at all.
But if abhi or amardeep hotfoot it here, crowing about superior crowd control on their blog, then a few honest anglo-saxon expletives may fly. You can ban me then
#55: See how group identity works.
I wrote my 56 before I read Anna’s sterling contribution to the er, debate. Ad hominems indeed! Please BAN me! I thank you very much for illustrating to PP readers how this censorship stuff really works. Wonderful innit? I get banned on SM without actually posting on it. Black comedy indeed.
Wow, I really won this debate hands down. but folks, in all modesty, I must admit that I could not have done it without the sterling contributions of the good folks from SM- Give them a big round of applause!
Mirax,
=>”I don’t have to read his bio. I’d like to know how that is relevant though.”
Something many (South) Asians of all backgrounds often do is take gross liberties with other (South) Asians in terms of how they speak to them purely because they happen to vaguely be from the same background. It happens in real life all the time and it also happens frequently on the internet, including this blog.
I’m not saying your conduct towards Amardeep — indeed, Dr Singh if we are to use his formal title — is motivated by this attitude (off PP and SM, I don’t know you personally so I have no idea what your stance towards other Asians is w.r.t courtesy etc, although I’ve mostly found you to be friendly and fair-minded here), but my original point was that it may be beneficial to step back and at least behave with some decorum and manners towards him*. His age, educational background and professional status deserve that much*. You’re not talking to some opinionated 23-year-old progammer with too much time on his hands. The entire “Papa AmarDEEP” rant was wildly out of line and entirely uncalled for.
*Of course, this level of fundamental courtesy should be extended to everyone, equally, regardless of their age, background, or occupation.
Jai, I respectly suggest that you take step back and not confuse the issue - the substance of the argument which -with extraneous detail like Amardeep’s professional qualifications, height, weight or race. I take Amardeep as he presents himself -simply Amardeep. I will apologise for being snarky about the Papa bit but hey, you know what, in great scheme of things, it was not that big a deal. Don’t make it out to be lese majesty, ok? Let’s maintain a sense of proportion here.
My skin happens to be brown but that is not the defining feature of my person, and I’d thank you to kindly remember that.
If your impressions of me in the past have not been too dire, what say you about this whole censorship brouhaha?
El Cid #17:
“Muslims are terrorists” or “Arabs are a bunch of terrorists”.
Um, But Desi, that is racist”
Did you read my posts #1 and #3?!
The statement above IS racist and I was saying that it should be called out as such, I don’t think it is “shutting down debate”.
Kismet: #18
“If you think something, say it. What’s the point sugar coating it? I’d rather a racist says what’s on his mind instead of pretending not to be one. Once their views are out on the public forum, the public can then put them in their place”
[wringing hands]….Did you READ my posts?
Jai,
Thanks for trying to add some civility into this which I think is a Sisyphus-like task. The best part is that in six months I will be a “Dr.” also. Then Mirax will have to refer to me as Dr. Abhi when attempting to bait me. Love it.
Okay, that’s all I wanted to add to this thread. Carry on. As you were.
I did Desi. I was agreeing with you. This always happens to me. A girl will say something, I’ll use my NLP handbook and mirror her views, next thing I know I’m getting beaten with sticks and other assorted blunt objects by her brothers
Dear future Dr. Abhi,
Why do you have to go on reiterating what most commenters have been saying for a while? You once again completely ignore the substance of the discussion like you have repeatedly done on SM and chose to applaud Jai on defending SM and it’s authors. It is commendable that you will be Dr. in six months but care to elaborate on the context? The point being repeatedly made here is not about anyone’s credentials it is about attitudes. Before you call anyone out for continuing the debate on PP is because we are all aware of how debates end on SM.
Sunny,
=>”Why is that Jai?”
I don’t wish to inadvertantly insult someone on their own blog so won’t go into too much detail here, although I feel that SM is more compatible with my own personality in terms of the general atmosphere there and also (most, although not all of) the people running that blog; suffice it to say I have some fundamental objections to the way commenters are often treated here on PP by yourself in terms of the language and tone which is directed towards them (note: I am referring to commenters who do not used profanities or personal abuse and are not malicious, even if they may sometimes be controversial). It’s more than a little off-putting if it happens frequently enough and over an extended period of time. I also have some reservations about the level of intellectual honesty sometimes involved in your arguments, although — again — this is a sensitive topic so I hesitate to go into extended detail on someone’s own blog.
Anna from SM summarised it in her usual eloquent way (although her own comment was directed at Mirax), ie. “So essentially you are saying that though you are not required to be rude, you choose to do so anyway because you feel he deserves it. Calling someone on something does not require that sort of tone and belligerence, unless undermining your own credibility is a goal.”
I also made similar comments on another thread here on PP quite recently as you may recall. You are a highly intelligent individual, you are certainly exceptionally well-informed about political matters, and I think your motivations and aspirations are extremely admirable. You obviously care deeply about justice and human rights. However, these issues can be compromised in terms of both moral credibility and the clarity of your thinking if your opinions are based on erroneous facts (various aspects of Sikhism and/or Indian history are the most notable examples) or if you descend into vicious, unwarranted verbal abuse against others. I cannot in good conscience ally myself with someone — by proxy, via my participation on PP — if I fundamentally object to the way he sometimes treats others and if I perceive a section of his agenda to be insincere and not crystal-clear in its intellectual and ethical rigour. Not if that person is seeking some kind of leadership position with the Asian community and is therefore aspiring to represent me, at least as a fellow “progressive” (or “liberal”, or whatever jargon one wishes to use). Rohin and Arif are good examples of how to do it “right”.
However, I think the raw material is certainly there and you definitely have great potential, in terms of your character as an individual and in terms of the goals you seek to reach. As long as you ensure that you are ruthlessly honest in your own thought-processes and have greater humility all-round (ie. refraining from comments such as “I remain myself” and what can be perceived as the arrogance underlying that mindset), and do not descend into rages against people who question or contradict you (yes I know many Asians do this, especially amongst the older generation — we’ve all grown up seeing “Uncle” types who behave that way — but we don’t have to perpetuate that particular Indian “tradition” ourselves), I think you can achieve great things, both via PP/AiM and your engagement with various political groups and causes in the real world.
Jai,
Albeit the above is not directed at me I must say it is patronizing at best. Your diatribe against how you expect Sunny or anyone else to conduct themselves is comical. If you don’t agree with someone or their language, call them out don’t patronize them telling what they should or shouldn’t do. I am not the one to condone disrespect, but supporting an ideology is one thing and blindly following it without questioning anything it is another story.
Because I enjoy playing the part of the anti-hero.
Also, I don’t really see the point in discussing anything here. A person only has a limited amount of time in this life. It is better to use it for positive then to engage in negativity and personal attacks as is often the norm here. The last sentence of your comment tells me everything I need to know about the conclusion of any conversation I would have with you. I don’t feel the need to change people’s minds about me. Everybody who knows me knows who I really am and what I am about. That is really all that matters to me.
Besides, Jai and Anna are far more eloquent than me.
Goodness ..
Thousand apologies for biting the bait for the last time.
The last sentence of my comment was made to call out the censor in SM authors. If you choose to assume how a conversation with me will be concluded then thank you for being clairvoyant. As for eloquence may be I should wait for your posse to come to you defense.
I apologize for the inadvertent snark in my last comment, it is uncalled for. For now I am at peace with SM authors running their show the way they like, there will be criticism and they can choose to close comments on as many posts as they may deem fit;)
ouch. Jai, with your civility and polite demurrals, you have hammered Sunny far harder than I ever did with my blunt protestations against the same mis-steps we both perceived. I am not sure that you are being altogether fair here.
Sunny tolerates dissent quite remarkably well most of the time. His diatribe against Amir was somewhat a departure but even dear Amir would fare far better on PP -where he is unlikely to ever be banned-than SM and HE knows it. In fact Amir posted on SM today on abhi’s thread questioning your hero, Amardeep, on the SM censorship policy.Not that he got a satisfactory reply. If he continues to needle them, poof!- the poor guy will disappear.
We are human, we lose our tempers, get rude,misunderstand each other, make mistakes, feel chagrinned, apologise - that’s all par for the course. That’s actually far healthier behaviour than some of what your SM heroes and heroine have dished out so far, so I’d advise you - in the friendliest way possible- to remove your blinkers.
For me anyway honesty counts for much more than mere civility; a few emollient phrases are nothing compared to the strength of character it takes to openly acknowledge mistakes and rectify them. Sunny has done pretty well in comparison to SM bloggers thus far.
Jai,
With all due respect, your posts are getting, to put it mildly, a bit irritating. I’ve been following the discussions both on PP and SM, and I find it mind baffling that you took issue with Sunny and started lecturing him about “civility”, “maintaining credibility” etc…. WHILE defending a commentator who is nothing but uncivilized and loses credibility post by post. The person you defended here and then invited to “come on board” over at SM lashes out at others, makes racist, blanketed, and illogical assertions and is in the offensive, from post 1. Then, after having offended everyone and their mom and putting words into people’s mouth, someone calls him out and he totally backtracks and says, “Guys, guys, I’m a cocky, arrogant writer, it’s my style….let’s not stoop to low blows, maintain a level of decorum” etc. Why aren’t you taking an issue with the people who instigate this kind of crap? The commentator that you defend– do his posts not strike you as insults and jingoistic arguments veiled in the clothes of “having a discussion” whereby the commentator excuses himself with “Oh, the truth hurts, doesn’t it”? You state:
“I cannot in good conscience ally myself with someone — by proxy, via my participation on PP — if I fundamentally object to the way he sometimes treats others and if I perceive a section of his agenda to be insincere and not crystal-clear in its intellectual and ethical rigour.”
This is your comment pertaining to Sunny. But, the commentator that you have allied yourself with- are you seriously saying that there wasn’t a problem with the way HE was treating other commentators, that he HIMSELF may have an “agenda” as you put it, and that a “section of his agenda” didn’t illustrate sincerity, crystal clear intellect and ethical rigour? Please.
Your comments regarding this particular topic come off as as arrogant, hypocritical, condescending, and patronizing. If you would like to regulate, ie telling all bloggers how they should run their sites, what they should do for credibility, how they should behave and defend certain commentators, welcome them on board to other blogs so that the person can carry on with their provocative and inflammatory attitudes there you should start a blog (also because I do enjoy reading some of your comments).
“these issues can be compromised in terms of both moral credibility and the clarity of your thinking if your opinions are based on erroneous facts (various aspects of Sikhism and/or Indian history are the most notable examples)”
I’ve read your comments on Sikhism and Indian history, and I do not mean to sound disrespectful, but did it ever occur to you that perhaps there might be things or perspectives that are legitimate that you had never thought about or you do not agree with? Or your knowledge is the only authoritative version? Your comments seem to imply that if one were to disagree with you, then their knowledge is based on erroneous facts.
“His age, educational background and professional status deserve that much*. ”
I beg to differ here and agree with Mirax about watching it when speaking to someone who happens to have a Ph.D. and is called a “Dr”. For the record, I enjoy Amardeep’s posts greatly, I think he is a sensitive writer who poses questions and discussions in an eloquent way. But I think this of him not because he is an academic. I’m in academia myself, and I will say here that I have met a lot of Ph.D.’s who spew a lot of crap. Having a Ph.d and a title does not deem them as an expert and reverential figure that requires a certain tone of discussion. Like you said, everyone deserve some amount of respect and we should be all be careful, (I actually wouldn’t have attacked Amardeep in the manner that some commentators have, even if I were to disagree with him. But again, not because of his Ph.D, but for other reasons).
And going back to the original topic, I really do believe in the freedom of speech. So, if someone posts inflammatory and disrespectful comments and whatnot, then he/she should expect that someone will probably respond in the same tone. Why should everyone else control themselves while another commentator doesn’t control him/herself? If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Period.
Another thing, too:
Leon says:
“indulge in partisanship”
So no one should ever blog in support or opposition to anything?”
I do not know whether PP is supposed to be an “informative” online magazine, or a blogging space. If it is a blogging space, then exactly, people are BLOGGING. This is what blogs exist for– so that you CAN insert your own opinions and freely present your own point of view. This is not say that “journalism”, which is supposed to be “objective”, is always objective (plenty of example of journalism that is anything but). But in journalism, one should take EXTRA care to put personal opinions aside. I see no reason why bloggers should do this. Good bloggers definately have the responsability to be thorough with the facts presented, should be help up to intellectual honesty and rigor, and take care not to misinform their readers, but they do not have to strive to be “objective” in their opinions that they present. It is a blog.
“should be help up to intellectual honesty and rigor”
Typo– “should be HELD up to intellectual honesty and rigor”.
And I would like to reiterate that bloggers must take heed to these standards, but they are free to formulate opinions and take sides.
That was not leon, desi I, it was me.
You are totally right, bloggers are not required to be objective and are free to promote their point of view. I meant my comment totally within the context of avoiding trolls and flamewars - would you not agree that ‘extreme’ partisanship tends to invite extreme responses too? If bloggers are sincere about the level of debate they want to encourage (note the parameter I outline), then it behooves them to take care with their posts too.
On the question of Amir, you have not been here as long as he has -if you would trouble yourself to read through all his posts, perhaps you’ll realise that not all of us share your perception of him. Jai too has been pretty much a positive contributor here so far. To be fair. It counts for something you know.
One last thing, and then I’ll stop:
There is a double responsbility with blogs. Bloggers should strive to make sure that what they are presenting is accurate. But they are entitled to inserting their own thoughts and opinions. Readers, on their part, should approach ANY piece of information they come across with a critical and speculative eye, and keep in mind that blogs are opinionated.
With regards to “journalism” and “scholarship”, the same approach applies on the part of the reader. Just because an article is found in a magazine that is called “Foreign Policy” which universities subscribe to doesn’t mean it is objective, free of opinion and bias, and should be taken at face value. ESPECIALLY with these things (like the NYT, etc) that purport to be “objective” and “unbiased”, just presenting “facts”, one should always read between the lines.
You Indians are so cute when you’re fighting each other
To my mind, the other little complication is when the blogger is also a journalist, like with Sunny. That’s when it gets messy and you confuse the personal/professional role of the blogger or expect much more of the blogger.
Mirax:
“On the question of Amir, you have not been here as long as he has -if you would trouble yourself to read through all his posts, perhaps you’ll realise that not all of us share your perception of him. Jai too has been pretty much a positive contributor here so far. To be fair. It counts for something you know.”
You are totally right, I am a newcomer here, and so my perceptions of certain commentators are limited by my brief exposure here. But I think it is also fair to take issue with the posts that I HAVE seen and read, particularly those that have been addressed to me on other threads. I can only respond to the blogs and comments I have come across. One cannot go through the entire archives of PP to get a sense of the specific commentator whose comments currently have caused sparks to fly.
Re: Jai, I now realize that it seems like I am attacking him in totality. I would like to highlight that my comment to Jai here (# 72) refers specifically to the incident regarding censorship, decorum, and behavior of commentators and bloggers. Jai, when you read this, I’d like to know that I do enjoy reading your comments, even if at times I disagree. My comment above addresses the posts you have written regarding this specific topic.
“would you not agree that ‘extreme’ partisanship tends to invite extreme responses too?”
Yes, I agree. I also think it works the other way around. If tomorrow I post a blog on Palestine and Israel, and then someone posts comments that put words into my mouth, ie “You deny the Holocaust, then?” or calls me an “anti Semite” if only I am criticizing Israel, I’d be pretty pissed (though I wouldn’t respond with profanity; well, maybe a little bit peppered here and there
)
RE: SM and Abhi, I understand why Abhi had been angry: on that particular blog pertaining to Kashmir that he shut down, commentators were not discussing the issue, they were putting words into Abhi’s mouth and totally going off on a tangent(posts that I had seen before he deleted them). A lot of those comments were not thoughtful posts, they were visceral, chauvenist, pumped up “India is the Best” kind of comments. This is unacceptable. Talk about the issue, but lay off the personal insults and putting words into people’s mouths (and I’ve seen that a bit here too on PP).
Watch it Raz, we’ll all collectively whup your skinny pakistani ass
Anyways I am not Indian.
Mirax, have you got any Bangladeshi in you?
Would you like some?
Laugh? I just came
“To my mind, the other little complication is when the blogger is also a journalist, like with Sunny. That’s when it gets messy and you confuse the personal/professional role of the blogger or expect much more of the blogger.”
Many professors, lawyers, and journalists open up a blog precisely for the reason that they would like to have a space where they can freely state their own personal opinions. There is nothing wrong with that, and readers should be informed and aware of this.
NOTE: I am not speaking for Sunny, I personally don’t know his motivations to be on this blog; I am only making a general statement from what I know about other journalists, professors, and writers.
“I am not speaking for Sunny, I personally don’t know his motivations to be on this blog”
The same as every Bond villain, to take over the world
Mirax, have you got any Bangladeshi in you?
What/who are you offering?
hey, kismet remember when I once sent you over to SM to see if you’d get banned? No worries, mate, they now come over to ban you! How’s that for service?
Desi, I may have misunderstood you. That’s what happens when you sneak a quick peek at PP while stuffing a smoked salmon bagel into your gob, before returning back to the grindstone.
I would also like a smoked salmon bagel please, El Cid. Thankyou.
Mirax, I’m still waiting for an opportunity to crack the obvious sado-massochism joke on SM but I’m finding it hard because I don’t understand American
Just to answer a few points before Jai’s… in reverse order.
The same as every Bond villain, to take over the world
Got it in one.
Many professors, lawyers, and journalists open up a blog precisely for the reason that they would like to have a space where they can freely state their own personal opinions. There is nothing wrong with that, and readers should be informed and aware of this.
Agreed. This blog is anything but non-partisan. We state right at the beginning we are a progressive blog, and hence I would never invite anyone non-progressive to write for us.
That said, I hope I’m not factually wrong and do try and change articles if they are. The same may not apply to points of view. I have my own way of looking at the world and I quite like it.
On the question of Amir, you have not been here as long as he has -if you would trouble yourself to read through all his posts, perhaps you’ll realise that not all of us share your perception of him
Mirax - that does not mean I’ll let him off from calling me an apologist for Ahmed-wassisname and thereby a defacto anti-semitic holocaust denier and supporter of Hamas.
ANNA says:
So essentially you are saying that though you are not required to be rude, you choose to do so anyway because you feel he deserves it. Calling someone on something does not require that sort of tone and belligerence, unless undermining your own credibility is a goal.
Agreed, and this is what I’d apply to Amir. Except rather than banning him I insulted him. Take it however you want it but that is the way I prefer it with regulars rather than one-off trolls.
She also says:
This isn’t a zero-sum game. Two brown blogs can exist without threatening or using the other “as a pedestal”; that, along with the glorious freedom to choose to waste your time in a fuckwit-free space, is the beauty of the interweb.
Totally agreed.
Mirax, near the top states bloggers have a responsibility to:
take care not to sensationalise, indulge in partisanship or post ill-informed opinions themselves if they wish to avoid more trolls and flamewars than strictly necessary
Errr, where is this code of conduct Mirax? Blogs work like free markets. If you are shit then no one will visit you and waste time commenting on your blog. Being racist or partisan hasn’t hurt LGF, Michelle Malkin and many others, so I’m not sure where this idea comes that we have to be non-partisan. You are welcome to debate and call us on ill-informed articles but I state what I want to say and how I see things rather than how others will want me to say it. That attracts some readers, drives away others - it is the way it goes.
“On the question of Amir, you have not been here as long as he has -if you would trouble yourself to read through all his posts, perhaps you’ll realise that not all of us share your perception of him. Jai too has been pretty much a positive contributor here so far. To be fair. It counts for something you know.”
As a newcommer, I also share Desi’s opinion about Jai and Amir. This thread is getting silly with all the prima-donnas with big egos. When someone threatens to boycott this blog and keeps coming back, I guess someone should be really flattered.
You Indians are so cute when you’re fighting each other
Divide and conquer, babe. Divide and conquer.
Jai, thanks for the comments and frankly if I didn’t expect some abuse then I wouldn’t have asked (I had an inkling anyway but I wanted you to elaborate).
That said, your post reads a bit like a tribute to me as if I’m dying
Thanks for the kind words. But I feel they’re misplaced.
Rohin and Arif are good examples of how to do it “right”.
I have nothing but respect for both, and I’ve known for Arif for years and he is almost like my mentor and a brother. We’ve had zillions of arguments but if there’s one thing I know, it is that I have my own style and way of looking at the world and I make no apologies for that. I also have my own way of dealing with people and sometimes I get it wrong and sometimes I’m happy with how I deal with things. That is the way it goes. But you’re not comparing like with like, in the sense that Arif does not like to controversy and does not like to go out on a limb and say things. I do.
It is hard to explain but while we agree on a whole range of things, the fact is we have different ways of working that impact what we want from the future and how we go about it. I cannot be like him and still do what I want to do. Hence I’ve chosen my path and stuck with my ways, whether others like it or not. If I’m belligerent with those who chose to abuse me, or I make fun of those who want to throw insults at me, that is my personality being expressed. As I said, I get it wrong sometimes but it comes with the territory.
That said Arif is certainly like my conscience in many ways but I sometimes choose to ignore what he says. He knows that, and I know it. So the point is you are not comparing like with like.
if I fundamentally object to the way he sometimes treats others and if I perceive a section of his agenda to be insincere and not crystal-clear in its intellectual and ethical rigour.
You are welcome to call me on it when I lack intellectual rigour but it’s a bit disappointing you think my style is dishonest. But that is your perception.
what can be perceived as the arrogance underlying that mindset
Yes, there is arrogance underneath that mindset. Am the first person to admit it. And I’ve developed it for many reasons that are too long to explain.
In my last post I said I agreed with Anna on this:
Calling someone on something does not require that sort of tone and belligerence, unless undermining your own credibility is a goal
Reading that in a different light, I see the point she is making, but I guess I disagree in that I would much rather deal with and cuss someone openly than banning them quietly if I felt they were a valuable contributor. Amir was/is valuable but he lost the plot and I said what I felt on the matter. And then he tried a lame comeback afterwards and there was no point in my responding. The fact is he is a drama queen. If he can’t take it then he shouldn’t dole it out in the first place.
Okay, I couldn’t let this go:
[First of all: Let me just thank Jai and Mirax for fighting my corner. I’m very touched. May I also thank Sid for his ego-boosting comments! Although we reside on opposite poles of the political spectrum, I have become a regular reader of his blog. Keep it up.]
Miss Desi Italia,
You are extremely arrogant and flatter yourself no end by casting a Gorgon’s gaze on my knowledge and my experience when yours is so clearly lacking. And stop trying to feign an attitude of reasonableness by referring to me as ‘…the commentator’. Here’s my name: Amir. Use it. Don’t beat about the bush. Okay, now let me respond:
Point 1: WHILE defending a commentator who is nothing but uncivilised and loses credibility post by post.
Now, considering that you don’t recognise Israel’s ‘right to exist’ in the Middle East, you have a nerve talking to me about ‘credibility’. Occasionally, I do go over the top with my sarcastic remarks and bookish neologisms, but that, I can assure you, is not malicious nor intended to malign the feelings of another human being [in any case, I do not have to justify myself to a vindictive axe-grinder such as yourself]. You, on the other hand, are superimposing a nasty ‘tone of voice’ onto mine so as to distort my true character… which, I can assure you, is a stark comparison to your Amir.
Point 2: The person you defended here and then invited to “come on board” over at SM lashes out at others
Lashing out at whom… precisely? I have made 3-4 comments on Sepia Mutiny, none of which came close to your emotive description of ‘lashing out’. Two of my comments received positive feedback, and another was greeted with frank disdain by an arrogant freelance writer called ‘Siddhartha’… because [shock, shock, horror] I had the gall to challenge his fictitious narrative of the 2005 French Riots. I did nothing to ‘provoke’ him. So, to be honest, he ended up looking a bit asinine. He used not one substantive claim to rebuke me. All he did was refer to me a ‘crypto-racist’ (whatever that means) – end of story.
Point 3: makes racist, blanketed, and illogical assertions and is in the offensive, from post 1.
I think ‘blanketed’ and ‘illogical’ summarises your own contributions perfectly. Now, when somebody accuses me of racism they cross a line. They cross a very important line. It transgresses the boundaries of an amicable discourse and enters into the realm of nastiness and lies – yes, ‘lies.’ You are a liar. I have never (once) made a racist remark about anyone or any one community. Having been brought up on the rough streets of Moss Side in Manchester [right next to the notorious Asian ghetto, Rusholme – where, incidentally, I acquired my passion for all things Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi], I have seen the best and worst of a multicultural society. For me, skin colour is the most irrelevant facet of our species.
Point 4: Then, after having offended everyone and their mom and putting words into people’s mouth
What???
Point 5: …a “section of his agenda” didn’t illustrate sincerity, crystal clear intellect and ethical rigour?
Where, oh where, do my comments reek of ethical dubiety? (Putting to one side, for a moment, my various odes to the various beautiful women on Pickled Politics…) Give examples. Or are you just letting empty accusations hover in the air… unattended, unsubstantiated.
Point 6: and he totally backtracks and says, “Guys, guys, I’m a cocky, arrogant writer, it’s my style….let’s not stoop to low blows, maintain a level of decorum” etc. Why aren’t you taking an issue with the people who instigate this kind of crap?
‘Crap’ is a fitting delineation for your own glaring distortions and flagrant omissions. Here is what I actually said:
Thread: “Absurd Headline of the Week” #22: As a writer, I’d describe myself as acerbic, cocky and slightly over-the-top… but hey, we all have our individual styles and ways of constructing prose. However, as an individual [with multiple identities might I add], I’d describe myself in opposite terms: Shy, polite, and painfully old-fashioned. I very rarely swear or raise my voice. And I don’t base my friendships on “ideological similarities” or tugging-the-party-line.
A disgruntled Amir [mental note: do not refer to oneself in the third person].
P.S. Ravi Naik… I used to relish your contributions. Now I just think you’re a bit of an arsehole. Was it my light-hearted comments about the Portuguese football team that infuriated you? Or was it my counter-arguments on the Israeli/Palestinian thread? Either way, I think you’re full of sour grapes. So don’t bother trying to engage with me.
Amir, fine form as ever!
I hope you stay - SM is bollocks.
It takes quite a lot to be a popular blog without allowing comments - think Geras.
…and while you’re at it, think Malkin too.
Amir:
“You are extremely arrogant and flatter yourself no end by casting a Gorgon’s gaze on my knowledge and my experience when yours is so clearly lacking.”
You are entitled to your own opinion. Surely, no one surpasses your expertise, knowledge, and experience.
I for one am no longer addressing or discussing Amir’s comments. It is useless to do so with someone who thinks he is completely in the right 110% of the time. Everyone else is arrogant and asinine. Everybody else who gets pissed off at Amir is just plain stupid, lacks knowledge and experience, unable to engage in a discussion, is a liar, dumb, a bit of an “arsehole”, etc [ad nauseum].
One last thing, though, sweetie:
-”He used not one substantive claim to rebuke me”
Many of your comments require complete deconstruction. I for one, as you have accused me, do not follow through with some of my claims because to be honest, I think, “where do I start?” I don’t know how many people have time for this, to start from square one (but then I should also not post a comment, this is know is a fault of mine).
-”Two of my comments received positive feedback”
Those two comments of yours that recieved “positive feedback” were about soccer, not about the spiel you wrote about race, multiculturalism, and insinuating that Sid was stupid. Re: the spiel:
-”another was greeted with frank disdain by an arrogant freelance writer called ‘Siddhartha’”
And another person who took issue with what you said. You also then posted a comment saying that Abhi had deleted his co-bloggers’s comments towards you, to which Abhi posted a comment saying that it was not true.
This is a waste of time, writing posts like this…..completely useless. Goodbye (not to PP, though. Just to Amir).
Now, this is funny Sunny:
Amir was/is valuable but he lost the plot and I said what I felt on the matter. And then he tried a lame comeback afterwards and there was no point in my responding. The fact is he is a drama queen. If he can’t take it then he shouldn’t dole it out in the first place.
It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to rationalise their own behaviour by shifting the blame onto other people. Have I ever told you to “fuck off” or “go and have a wank” – as you so gratuitously put it to me? No. Did I ever refer to you as a “twat”? No. Have I ever described your views on multiculturalism as “dogshit”, compared it to a “mental disease”, or [one of my favourites] tried to avoid a rational debate by saying… “he’s Melanie Philips’ grandson. Ha ha!” No.
That, my friends, is why I got more and more frustrated on this blog. You say I ‘lost the plot’ (a shady euphemism for “…he doesn’t agree with us”), and yet all you could do was throw mud and hurl abuse at me. A mirror image of Faisal Bodi’s putdowns on CiF. Yes, precisely… you have the gall to accuse me of being a ‘drama queen’, and yet, paradoxically, Sunny devoted two entire threads to Scott Burgess’s mild comments and Faisal Bodi’s ‘brown sahib’ jibe. Yes: two threads. Drama queen… anyone?
And no: I didn’t accuse Sunny of being a Holocaust denier, or an anti-Semite, or a flag-waving supporter of Mahmood Ahmedinejad. I challenge anyone to find a quotation that stipulates otherwise.
I insinuated on post #9 (click and read it) that you frequently turn a blind eye to the nasty politics of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the genuine threat he poses to stability in the Middle East. Turning a “blind eye” is not the same thing as endorsing or espousing those views yourself.
I stand by my comments.
Okay, carry on with the abuse…. Go ahead…. Continue…I insist….
Amir
Sonia - where have you been all day?
Kids are now in bed and just seen Alan De Botton on TV - reminded me to see how the discussion is going on.
Raz - we have the British to thank for the Indians being all over the world so that this fighting can go on 24 hours of the day. The sun never sets on the Empire
Have I missed something - do you all know each other? I mean personnally, Have you all secretly met for a drink after work? I ask because it seems to me that most of us post anonymously, but yet somehow we anonymous lot have started ascribed a personality to our names. ( I mean the ones who are not in Blue type with lines under them) This is not a good sign. Its a very bad sign - a sign we are getting delusional. Our “comment personality” is beginning to have feelings of hurt, scorn, humiliation , seeking revenge. I can understand it from people in Blue type with lines under them. Or are there multiple personalities on the go here? Has El Cid been cloning his Menwith Hill “go anywhere” internet pass?
So just to make it clear - “Justforfun” is now a real person , no longer one of the Borg in the Collective and I would be grateful if you would all imagine me with at least 2 Phds, imagine these were many many years ago - no late starter me. Imagine my Mum kicking me out of bed, giving me my pack lunch and then taking me in to lectures. Imagine I have now renounced these as actually a complete waste of time, I have restarted with a completely blank mind.
Bugger, Bugger, Bugger - just seen Amir’s post - now everone will be depressed
Justforfun
Just as an aside - my Greek teacher (my god that shows my age - do they do Greek anymore in schools?) once told me that the Ancient Persians and Parthians never wrote anything down - they never wrote down their histories. They insisted on the spoken word, they wanted to hear the Truth and they believed Lies could be passed on in the written word but not in the spoken word, because to lie was to imperil ones soul.
Well the “writing” genie is now out the bottle so we have to use other strategies. Perhaps we should just post anonymously, read the comments for their content , check up where you think its bolloxs, and not try and fathom the personality behind the comment. We are all clever enough to do that at least. Of course we are human so we need to have a mental image of the others here. I did this once before - I’m this guy -http://www.pbase.com/clodreno/image/60111082
who are you? choose from here (2 pages) - http://www.pbase.com/clodreno/portraits
or here for those who want the authentic Indian look.
http://www.bollywoodpicturesgallery.com/
Justforfun
You’re boring me Amir, I thought you’d left already?
P.S. Ravi Naik… I used to relish your contributions. Now I just think you’re a bit of an arsehole. I used to relish your contributions. Now I just think you’re a bit of an arsehole.
I think this displays the extent of your immaturity. I don’t have to demonstrate any further that I’m happy for people to criticise my thoughts, views and opinions. I got nothing more to say kid.
As always: you never respond with anything substantive do you?
It’s always a *yawn* or *you’re boring me* or *he sounds like Melanie Philips… tee hee hee*
Try this on for size:
Occasionally Sunny… you’re wrong. [gasp]
And this:
Occasionally Sunny… you’re very immature for a 28 year old [gasp]
Maybe, just maybe… if you showed a bit more humility, stopped cussing me on every thread and admitted [yes, ‘admitted’] when you were out-of-order, apologised, etc… then maybe I’d stop being so hysterical.
In reality, you’re as stubborn as a mule.
So stop trying to misrepresent PP as a Nirvana for enlightened ‘self-criticism’ or a market-place for new ideas [because it ain’t] or telling other commentators to be ‘civil’ and ‘mature’. Because, well, you ain’t.
I’ve had my closure.
Your hypocrisy is unbelievable.
“Ravi Naik… I used to relish your contributions. Now I just think you’re a bit of an arsehole. Was it my light-hearted comments about the Portuguese football team that infuriated you? Or was it my counter-arguments on the Israeli/Palestinian thread?”
Amir, as you said I am a bit of an arsehole not a total jerk. I would not be infuriated by peanuts, not about football and certainly not about your position on the Middle East.
I already said what pissed me off back in that thread where you went all mental on us.
Let’s move on shall we? And agree to disagree and all that.
Amir - start your own blog mate - these guys are crazy.
Amir:
“Now, considering that you don’t recognise Israel’s ‘right to exist’ in the Middle East, you have a nerve talking to me about ‘credibility’.”
This comment really infuriates me, because I NEVER SAID THAT. I NEVER said “I don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist”. You did this over on the Israel and Palestine thread as well. Why do you continue to put words in people’s mouths? I’ve already pointed this out in my comments here on this thread.
Goodbye.
amir - you’re pretty much guilty of much the same sort of things you accuse Sunny of. now can we give this a rest -this is a prime example of why we don’t have peace in the bloody middle east. if people are so bothered to spend hours nitpicking this that oh you were hypocritical i wasn’t kind of thing no surprise the israelis and palestinians can’t get their shit together.
it ain’t like we aren’t all really hypocrites on some level or other…so perhaps everyone can chill.
Yes Sonia is absolutely right.
But I still think you blogless mofo’s should stop dictating to Sunny and Abhi their house rules. If you have a problem with a blog’s agenda set up your own AND USE TRACKBACKS to reference posts you agree/disagree with rather than bore the rest of us with these agonisisng histrionics. Go shit on your own doorsteps.
There’s work to be done here and if you must derail discussions, expect to get banned.
Hmm I have to say i think there is a slight difference in dynamics when its a big blog where people come to have group discussions - rather than one man and his blog and x and y came to