Abuses in Blog Comments

Sometimes I feel the quality of Indian blog comments is really nosediving. I’m not talking about flawed logic, or other diversionary tactics. Those are undesirable, but can be found everywhere. I’m not even talking about violent disagreement of ideas. What I’m talking about is abuse. Pure, unadulterated abuse in its most vitriolic form.

An example is on this post talking about the dangers of the UID. Most of the comments there agree with the author’s point that it can lead to dangerous invasion of privacy. But there are some who disagree, and that is fine given that it’s an open forum for the discussion of ideas. By and large the comments are decent, and make valid points. But a few comments are just abusive. Here are some snippets:

people like you…Anti Indians, pseudo seculars.. wearing a mask of goodness and patriotism.. I knew it!.. U don’t give a damn about our country or neither you have any sense of patriotism or pride left as an Indian. Because people like you all they love is to defend the minority terrorist groups in name of human rights etc…Indians like you… who have no whatsoever pride,love for our nation..nor u want to know the truth..but all u want to propagate s false peace..goodness..and image of a perfect writer who actually r antI Indian pseudo secularS.

and

People like you who r anti-national, anti-Hindu pseudo secularists, communists, minority appeasers, extremist/terrorist sympathizers and truth blockers should open up and see..that what IS the real situation and propaganda is… rather than going against some1 who is a patriot and opposing Stallman for talking anti-India.

Those who’re interested can find many more of these sort of comments in my experiments on dialogging with those who disagree with my views.

Most of us have come across them, and I must admit to enjoying it immensely at some level…they’re kind of funny. The problem is they completely short circuit any mature discussion. I’ve come across many of these recently, and almost all of them are by Indians. They’re very common on news sites like the Times of India which strangely enough, holds all comments for moderation and yet lets these through! This is in contrast to the New York Times which has a strict policy against abuse.

Where is all this anger coming from? I don’t like to stereotype and I’ve seen abuses from both sides of the political spectrum, but it seems to me that most vitriolic hatred is spewed by the right wing. I mustn’t tar all right wing commenters with the same brush and there are many who engage in civilized debate even if it’s something I don’t agree with. But if a particular comment is vitriolic and hate filled, it’s probably from a right winger!

It doesn’t seem to matter what the topic is about. I’ve seen such comments on Religion, Government, the Media, and even topics such as Climate change! No sphere seems to be free of abusive comments. I wonder if this trend is only going to increase, or will some sort of consensus emerge where those spouting vitriol will be shunned? We’ll just have to wait and see.

One thing I’ve started doing is to reply to such comments drawing their attention to the fact that they’re being abusive. I ask them to be polite, tell them it’s not good manners and also suggest that people will take them more seriously if they come across as being cool and level headed instead of frothing at the mouth.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (6)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

79 thoughts on “Abuses in Blog Comments”

  1. The very idea of being ‘moderate’, ‘tolerant’, liberal, open to new ideas, peace loving, respecting individual rights etc makes you politer. The Right Wing stands for the opposite of all these values, I think.

    Reply

    • In reply to Indian Homemaker

      Hmm – that might indeed be it. Also, I’d like to understand the demographics of those who leave these comments. Age, and work status would be two of them – who knows, there may be an interesting correlation!

      Already I know that I’ve never come across a woman who abuses like this – or maybe one, I’m not sure. Yet I see lots of women bloggers who’re decent and even the few right wing women I’ve read are moderate. Wonder if testosterone has anything to do with it :)

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        good points by IHM above.

        But I think if one searched hard enough one could find lots of abuse from far-lefties. I could be wrong (dim memories) but a blogger named Shivam Vij had lots of comments on his site (from both sides of the spectrum IIRC) that were significantly abusive.

        Glenn Greenwald’s blog at Salon has very thought-provoking and usually very informed commentary by GG himself, but the comments group gangs up on any dissenters and asks them for example, “the results from their personal colonoscopy exam” etc. Lefty abuse just tends to be a little more sophisticated but may be as damaging as righty.

        But yes exceptions apart, I do agree with you and IHM that a generic sample of inet abuse is more likely right-wing in origin.

        thanks,
        Jai

        Reply

      • In reply to Jai_C

        Though the US right wing is more abusive than the left, there’s more of a healthy debate I think. I too have come across of left wing abuse, but as you say – not much.

        Reply

  2. Bhagwad,

    What you point out is indeed a problem. Perhaps, what contributes is the apparent power that anonymity affords. Though, what you’ve pointed out are mere strong words, which need not be even considered expletives, but what is worse is that some come up with incestual expletives, which is also not the worst thing, but what is worst is death threats and the like. Perhaps, no one practically takes such threats seriously, but that makes them stand on the wrong side of the law.

    Personally, I do not enjoy being verbally abused. It is ever so slightly tempting to get back, but I have refrained on all occasions. But it has also happened on few occasions, especially, on twitter that those who had started out by abusing me, or being sarcastic, ended up commending me for my civil behavior and composure. But what was ironically worrying after that was that I felt they started believing me all too blindly. I had to take special care to warn them that they must not believe me blindly!

    Also, one more mentality that makes abusers get particularly abusive with media persons is the feeling that they’re anyway getting paid (and part of it, through illegitimate means, which irks people the most, including myself) for withstanding all the abuse! I know that’s silly, but perhaps is a palpable sentiment. Of course, that wouldn’t explain why non-media persons are also abused. But I’ve noticed that non-media persons are not abused as hard as the media persons.

    I think the reason most abuse seems right-wing is simple to understand. The majority population in India, and especially on the internet is of Hindus. And it has become conventional to term whoever points out partisan attitude of the media and the Congress government as ‘right wing’. I was automatically labeled ‘Hindutvawadi’ (which being an atheist, I do take as a sort of abuse, especially going by the intent behind it) by one of the most intelligent blog commentators I know simply for pointing out that the Tehelka videos of Babu Bajrangi, though sensationalist, did not contain any evidence of merit and would not be admissible in the court of Law as evidence against Modi’s connivance. I responded, in what I would consider, a civil manner. I continue to have engaging and interesting discussions with that commentator. Otherwise, the term ‘right wing’ does not lend itself to application to such a huge number of commentators.

    I think I have pointed out where all this angst comes from – that is the openly partisan conduct of the media. E.g., very recently Rediff had uploaded a video of Shahi Imaam of Delhi Jama Masjid hitting at and driving out a reporter from a press conference. But I’m pretty sure this event won’t get even one-tenth the prominence of say, Muthalik’s involvement in ‘planning’ of riots. Then, I myself saw pictures of broken idols of Shiva uploaded over twitter, which were purportedly of Deganga in Bengal, where more than one temples had been damaged in riots just couple of weeks back. The nature and scale of these crimes was comparable, if not worse than Babri demolition, but there has been little media reporting. You might point out that people like hearing about demolition of a Mosque and not that of a Temple, simply because media houses that are successful employ that policy, but I have no reason to believe that that is the case. If the media houses start depicting crimes against Hindus as well as against Muslims with the coverage they justifiably deserve, then this accusation of bias will become much milder. Now it might surprise some as to why would any media house be obliged to cover such an event as it should be upon their discretion and as also because the Hindus are anyway the majority, but the fact is many people do not find such arguments keeping in with the idea of objectivity and fairness. It is natural that they get angry with the media. Also, this anger is growing for simple reason that, say, just 5 years back suppressing this kind of news would’ve been very difficult, but now with advent of facebook, YouTube and twitter, doing so is becoming extremely difficult. So, many people (mostly Hindus, quite surprisingly) get angry when such events are not covered. But on the other hand, the media has not corrected its follies, simply because their income does not depend upon fairness in coverage and factual accuracy. So, the perceived gulf between reality and media-projections is only widening, and it is for this reason that the amount of angst keeps on rising.

    Also, though this post must not become one about “you-give-an-example-you-give-an-example” types, I have seen even media persons use abuse simply because they couldn’t defend their actions. E.g., one blogger-tweeter had simply asked Nidhi Razdan to explain how they had propagated the idea that Narendra Modi was summoned by the SIT on 21st March, and also that he would skip it. Nidhi had accused the said person of “not knowing English” (as if that is a big crime in itself). You can read more about it here: http://serious–fun.blogspot.com/2010/03/trysts-with-msm-part-2.html While, the said blogger has not provided the links to the tweets (which he should have done), I had actually witnessed all of that unfolding over twitter. In fact, in one of her follow up tweets she had ended up calling him “jobless”. Just recently, Sagarika Ghose had called Ram a “divine encroacher” in one of her tweets. I had asked her in response, what were her views on Prophet Mohammed. Of course, by that time she had deleted that tweet and no answer was forthcoming. She has no doubt, a right to abuse Ram, but then questions like “where does this angst arise from” automatically get partially answered.

    What compounds the problem is that these media persons act extremely haughty. They don’t answer intelligent questions and create a strawman-like situation by highlighting abusive tweets. This lack of accountability further worsens the entire problem. And after that if even the non-media person express same/similar ideas, perhaps backed by a lot sounder logic, the intolerance developed and makes the abusers further antagonistic to the idea, and hence to its progenitor.

    Also, one of the problems with majority of people is of wanting to categorize people, especially that of those with contrarian views. So, if once a person is seen to be “bad”, most people start seeing all his/her opinions only from that perspective. E.g., once I had asked a fellow blogger that what would be his opinion of the Shiv Sena, if it comes up with electoral promises like building more schools & hospitals, promoting girls’ education, etc.? His reply was that he cannot take such promises seriously because Shiv Sena cannot be a sensible party. Now quite ironically, Shiv Sena’s manifesto has indeed had such points and in fact not been too bad in administering Mumbai (which has serious lack of funds as against well-funded Delhi). :) I quite deliberately gave this example where the one harboring this prejudice was a “non-rightist” blogger to show that such tendencies exist on either side of the divide. Though, the said blogger might not come up with abuses against the Sena, but the basic psychology and prejudiced attitude remain the same. So of course, I have noted that many ‘right-wingers’ (who’re opposed to the Congress) do not see the merits of increasing nuclear power production in India, they oppose the prospective nuclear deals just because they would be effected by the Congress! So, that is the problem with getting too worked up & hating an entity blindly – that is, loss of objectivity. :)

    I think this problem has got something to do with human nature, as well as our education system. In our education system a lot of stress is given to personalities, rather than ideas. E.g., the image projected of Gandhi is such that, whatever he had said had to be an undeniable truth. This promotes an idea of blind cult following and arguing from the authority (“so-and-so great person said so, hence has to be correct”). So, people do not grow to be inquisitive, inquiring and skeptical. Whatever “sounds good” is accepted as the truth. In fact, despite my reading so many blogs, I encounter very few which would not rely on rhetoric. So, argumentation is not seen as an art. Perhaps, abuse, just like sarcasm & rhetoric is seen as art by some (am not being facetious here) and a legitimate form of ‘argument’. These things can be changed only if people are encouraged to be honest about themselves. If you see the Indian society, it is very punitive of even small errors (largely because of such overwhelming competition). So people find it hard to accept that they were wrong. And especially when this is done with very strong logic & with composure (as someone like you is very likely to do), a feeling of ‘defeat’ sinks in (because being proved wrong is ridiculed so much in India) and the automatic angry response is abuse.

    Reply

    • In reply to Ketan

      Thanks for the detailed reply Ketan – though I’m wary of starting the “media” debate on this post again! Interestingly (just to divert for a moment) there’s a pretty dumb email doing the rounds about the Media’s ownership. It’s full of false information, but written in such a way that it provides fodder for those looking to bash the media. I sent it to my friend whom I had spoken with earlier and he replied point by point which I’ll publish sometime soon here…

      Media people also get insulted for just about everything else and not just for religious topic discussions. I’m not too big a fan of Barkha Dutt, but the amount of abuse directed towards her is pretty unbelievable – especially over her coverage of events like 26/11 and Kargil.

      It’s interesting that you brought up Muthalik since I believe he illustrates an important point. Muthalik’s transgressions are indeed more important than those done others – for two reasons as I wrote in a post some time ago.

      Not to flog a dead horse here, but transgressions done by the majority on the minority are of more inherent interest than others since the danger of such transgressions getting a public sanction is much more. Attacks on homosexuals and blacks in the US for example get much more attention than others and I believe that’s a very good thing. The same is true for India.

      But coming back to the main topic here, many have remarked on the inherent “impoliteness” of Indians – we talk loudly on cell phones in public, arrive late for meetings and do a lot of other things that show a scant regard for being polite. I guess it’s hardly surprising that this carries over onto the Internet and as said, the anonymity provides them with the cover they need to become even bolder.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        I understand, and even I’m not opening the debate on media’s credentials. Firstly, I don’t agree that transgressions on minorities must get additional coverage. But, even if I were to accept your view, then please compare Muthalik’s case (I’m not talking of the pub attack where media had been called in to record the event, but another case where in a ‘sting’ he was shown accepting money for planning to instigate a riot at a painter’s exhibition in an attempt to make the painter popular like M. F. Hussain by creating controversy) where the riot was merely ‘planned’ and it got an extensive coverage for more than one day, but Deganga (actual) riots (in which according to at least one newspaper, a person was perhaps killed, apart from the pic of desecration of idol I was talking of) were not even mentioned to the best of my knowledge on major news channels. An obvious corollary of saying that “transgressions on minority deserve greater coverage” is that “transgressions on majority deserve less coverage”. But where is this line to be drawn? How less is sufficiently less? And on other hand, how less is too less? Of course, my asking these questions is not intended to justify the abuse (obviously, I too have been at the receiving end, and unlike you, I don’t even find such abuse amusing), but I am trying to point out one of the prominent reasons for this grievance. Additionally, if the idea holds that a majority always hurts the minority more frequently than the minority hurts the majority, then even if all the events are reported faithfully, the plight of minority would become apparent; there is no special need to try to suppress info related to damage done to the majority.

        “Media people also get insulted for just about everything else and not just for religious topic discussions.”

        That can be viewed in two ways. First, as I mentioned above, loss of objectivity makes these abusers hate these media people blindly – abusing them even when they’re not being wrong, or when they might be doing good job. Second, perhaps the reason these people hate media has got nothing to do with religion. They actually find what they say outrageous. But I would rather go by the first reason, more than the second one.

        Lastly, though some might find trivial the follies of media I’ve pointed out in almost a score of instances, for those who see these as fallacious, the grievance is real. If an attempt to clarify or to address the grievances is not made, the anger would keep on rising.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        The reason why Muthalik’s stuff was more talked about was because he was talking about planned, politically motivated riots which are far more serious than spontaneous spur of the moment ones.

        As I mentioned in the link I had given in my previous comment, the other reason that Muthalik got more coverage was that he was totally shameless. Indulging in a crime is one thing. Parading around and boasting of it is quite another!

        That’s an important point I want to make. Violence of the type that Muthalik propagates gets the stamp of legitimacy which is demonstrated by him trying to justify it. No one publicly tries to justify attacks on Hindus – I’ve never heard any politician do so. But I’ve seen lots of politicians justifying attacks on Muslims.

        But this discussion is in danger of hijacking this thread :)

        In any case, abuse towards the media is just one form of the abuse I’m talking about. Doubtless there are reasons for everything and if I sat down and asked someone why he’s so interested in abusing me, he would give me his own reasons – so that’s a moot point.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Oh, and I forgot to mention, Barkha Dutt is hated so much, especially in context of 26/11 for two reasons – her sensationalist reporting was seen as very insensitive. Secondly, she (and the way media acted) is seen to have helped the terrorists kill more people. And of course, to follow it up, she got a blogger, Chaitanya Kunte, (I don’t remember the original spelling) gagged through threat of litigation (though, this part has never been revealed by Kunte, it is indeed very likely). I find these kinds of errors too serious.

        Reply

  3. Its not just the blogposts, but if you see the comments to news articles on CNN-IBN or TOI (online), you feel like going burying yourself somewhere. Its just disgusting the language people use to make their point.

    Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I so agree with Neha on this… read any news item on any online magazine or newspaper, and within the first 10 comments, you can easily see how tempers flare and language deteriorates. It really is disgusting!

        Reply

  4. Bhagwad

    On my blog I don’t publish such stuff, and generally warn such writers to not repeat such things. If it happens twice, I transfer the person’s email to spam. The only way to have sensible debate is to block out those who don’t respect polite discussion. No time to discuss with those who don’t know the basic rules of discussion.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

    Reply

    • In reply to Sanjeev Sabhlok

      The problem is Sanjeev, that most of these comments will have one interesting point hidden away inside five lines of abuse. How to extract and debate that one point and at the same time keep the useless stuff out is something I’m yet to find out…

      Reply

  5. bhagwad,
    I was reading through this post and the comments and one statement by Ketan caught my eyes. “….. was automatically labeled ‘Hindutvawadi’ (which being an atheist….”.
    This exactly explains the situation in Indian media and Blogosphere. Its a new commandment that “you should never agree with right wing ! Even if you find slightest truth in the words of right wing (even on neutral topics), keep it yourself! else you will be branded ! And if you couldn’t hold it but publishing, make sure you announce yourself as Atheist”. :-)

    I feel they should be heard (on my defence I am atheist :-) ) instead of closing both the ears and shouting LA LA LA ! I am not referring this particular bloke you had trouble with, he probably ran out of points :-)

    Apologies, for deviating.

    Reply

    • In reply to bachodi

      I agree B. Unfortunately it seems to be a human tendency to split into disparate groups. I also understand there’s a lot of confusion about what a “right winger” is and it’s sometimes used as an insult, but I never use it in that way and at one time I had to warn a commenter not to use it as an abuse. When I use the word I use it as it’s defined in wikipedia.

      But even taking that into consideration, it’s another thing to abuse someone even if you feel the other person belongs to a different camp. I’m ok with disagreement – even a violent clash of opinions. But it must never get personal. And that I feel is something that is very prominent in right wing comments.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        I entirely understand that abuses are displeasing, distracting & sometimes, even illegal. But I think that most people anyway agree to that (perhaps, even the abusers do, but either they don’t have the argumentative skill or are too impatient to be losing their cool easily, or find their grievances too overwhelming to keep on continuing to be civil, or are being plain mischievous). So I didn’t think that’s what this post is about. I gather that the post is about trying to find the reasons for such abuse & moreover, to try to find out why they appear to emanate more so (or exclusively) from the ‘right wing’. [BTW, I have tried to provide many (psychological) reasons (as against justifications) as to why these abuses happen, and I would like to know what do you think of my speculated reasons (it is not a case that I’ve pointed out media-bias as the only reason)].

        So I guess, debate over whether things that make the abusers angry are worthy of getting angry at, is not an issue. Or is it (not being rhetorical here)? Are you concerned with (1) what is causing the anger, and if that anger is justified or (2) the degree of apparent anger or (3) the manner of its expression?

        I’ve gone through the definition of ‘right wing’ in the past. Do we, e.g., know that the commentators support dowry &/or sati &/or female infanticide/feticide &/or what khaps did? If not, then, how do we know that these people stand for the defense of ‘tradition’. Another prominent criterion that came out was ‘nationalism’. Again, I feel lot more people (out of social conditioning as well as peer pressure) would identify themselves as nationalists. In fact, the very people who abusers abuse swear by the idea of wanting their nation to progress and other concepts like ‘secularism’ and ‘libertarianism’.

        One more thing I want to ask you is, in your system of ethics, do you see ‘lying’ and ‘being dishonest’ or worse or more acceptable forms of public behavior as compared to personal abuse? I consider latter to be highly irritating, but wouldn’t be bothered till it translates into threat to life or mental health of the one abused. But former is something that would worry me a lot because it has important immediate as well as long-term consequences (e.g. just like how you pointed out in your latest post that your mother is given to believing things she reads easily). Would you consider ‘pseudo-secular’ to be abuse if the reader thinks that the point being made is actually against the concept of secularism? E.g., I believe in complete separation of religion from administration, that is secularism for me. But invocation of religion &/or caste in any manner to discriminate between citizens is something I see as perversion of the idea. Would I be right in then labeling this stance as ‘pseudo-secularism’? If the Indian news channels give extensive coverage to non-burning of Bible in the US & banning of Minarets in Sweden (purportedly as they love the right of freedom of practicing religion), but largely ignore the desecration of Hindu Temples and idols in Deganga (in India), then would I be alright in identifying this stance as pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu? Would I be too wrong in attaching a certain degree of inconsistency in application of ideals to one justifying such lopsided coverage? Is application of inconsistent standards to similar situations a surrogate for intellectual dishonesty? If these are the things I actually feel, what is the most decent and publicly acceptable way of pointing them out? Would, in such circumstances, prefixes like ‘pseudo’, ‘faux’, ‘anti-‘ and ‘pro-‘ automatically qualify as abuse?

        The possible reason abusers end up abusing the ideas of secularism & liberalism are because the very authors would use these ideals as the basis of making their points, which would (justifiably or otherwise) provoke the reader. E.g., in a short story I’d written on my blog, which had at just one place a scene of a character interacting with God, one of the anonymous commentators had ‘abused’ me saying something like “all atheists are shallow & cannot appreciate emotions”. Obviously, story had nothing to do with atheism! [You can find it – the penultimate comment here: http://ketpan.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/residua-redirect/ ]

        Though not directly related to this post, I find the point you make about how media should address minority & majority issues very disturbing. “Relative suppression of wrongs of the minority done to the majority” being the direct corollary of “transgressions done by the majority on the minority are of more inherent interest than others” is something I cannot digest. In the very example you gave, let’s say if a heterosexual person slaps a homosexual person simply out of hatred of gays without any provocation, then, I would understand that there be lengthy discussions aimed at pointing out the problem of bigotry. But if a homosexual person kills (as against merely slapping) a heterosexual person out of same bigotry, not covering the event would come out as very odd to me. It would certainly enrage me, not because I would hate homosexuals (which I certainly do not), but because I would feel shortchanged by the media. I can no longer rely upon such a media.

        Lots of politicians justifying attacks on Muslims” –> ? Did you mean to say “few” instead of ‘lots of’?

        Whether any politicians justify attacks on Hindus would depend on whether media decides to cover it, which in turn would depend on… something that I’ve already conjectured about in my blog post.

        Just like how you find portrayal of uncovering of Muthallik’s attitude important I find it important that the attitude that Shaahi Imaan of Jama Masjid displays is quite worthy of being discouraged; this is the video: http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/14/slide-show-1-bukhari-thrashes-scribe-over-ayodhya-query.htm

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        I’m concerned with what’s causing the anger and it’s manner of expression.

        There are degrees of “right.” And I don’t think Sati can be called a “tradition” anymore! And female infanticide has its roots in economic reasons not cultural ones.

        But yes – I do in fact know that lots of those I call “right wing” support khaps in their actions, and happily justify the murders they commit. I can give you more sources if you want.

        Nationalism doesn’t mean that you want your country to progress. That’s a no brainer. What I mean by nationalism is sentiments saying that your country is better than other countries and that your religion isn’t as intolerant blah blah, we had such a glorious past and we were robbed, sense of grievance etc.

        About the majority/minority violence, yes – a homosexual killing a heterosexual man even out of hate is pretty uninteresting to me because there’s no danger of it becoming a trend. I’m likely to view it as a one off case. But when a heterosexual man slaps a homosexual man, the very fact of the attacker being in a majority means that it could be a trend that is becoming acceptable. A homosexual’s attacks on heterosexuals will never become acceptable.

        And this is the crux of the issue as I have said. I’ve never heard a politician (of any religion) justifying attacks on Hindus. I have heard however politicians justifying attacks on Muslims. Don’t you see why I want to hear more about incidents that indicate a larger trend instead of one off cases that are in no danger of blowing up?

        The link you sent, the fellow is obviously an intolerant asshole. But is there a danger of his attitude gaining widespread acceptance? No way – not in India. Acts by the minority can’t blow up and become an acceptable trend. Acts by the majority can.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        Thanks for clarifying!

        If only that matters to a ‘right winger’ is the idea had been great in the past because of its traditions and the then existing institutions (e.g., the idea of wanting to restoring a Ram Temple that had existed some time in the past), then there is little reason they would not want to have the tradition of sati restored at least in those places of India where it was practiced. Female infanticide/feticide had been a tradition in vast areas of (mainly, norhtern) India, a proof of which is the otherwise inexplicably skewed sex ratio. A right winger would be interested in restoring and propagating a tradition, irrespective of whether it was precipitated by economic factors or some other consideration.

        The right wingers you pointed in that post were three, of which not all of them had even completely supported the idea of Khap Panchayats. Moreover, one of them was asking you for the simple evidence that what media had reported was indeed true. And yes, in which case asking for a video proof would not be too off the mark. A person’s saying that two persons of same gotra, if married, must be killed is very different from most people actually agreeing with him, and then actually going and killing the two people. I would be inherently skeptical of the survey you pointed out in that post (77% support Khaps), because there is no way I could ascertain its validity myself, and unlike scientists/researchers whose results of experiments are reviewed by independent referees and later also by peer reviews, no such mechanism exists in case of at least the Indian media and their surveys. A similar example of survey carried out in Britain was here (click). Please do go through the link, and you would notice that the prime-most caveat of my analysis is: “if…is to be believed”. So, this kind of skepticism expressed towards media’s reports is not particularly unusual. I also noticed that ‘Comrade…’ was trying to test you on your consistency with regard to application of principles of liberty across different religions when he was citing the example of Muslim personal laws, which are not being viewed as impinging on individual liberty of women by the Constitution of India, which you had sought to sake support of for validity of your premises. Of course, whether to take the test on offer, was entirely up to you. :) But the most important question is how many people are there who support these Khaps? Indian Pundit had pegged the figure at 80% of internet users and also had insinuated that all these are BJP supporters. And from the tone of your responses it did not appear that you had disbelieved his assertions. Also, do you know that those who had ‘supported’ Khap killings are the ones who’ve abused you and others (say, through their IP addresses) on other issues?

        My view of news is that they are the portrayal of what is happening. Because, in name of trying to report things according to what might become a trend in uncertain future can become an easy excuse for trying to push one’s PoV. Also, by any standard I apply, a murder, a few days of curfew and a possibility of such a clash spiraling into a huge riot anyway warrants at least a mention, if not lengthy debates, irrespective of what was the community of the one killed.

        And the thing you said about Imaam Bukhari is not convincing. The fact that he is at such a high position in his religious community, which is the 15% of Indian population, is sufficient evidence that his influence is not insignificant. Moreover, it remains to be seen if he’s removed from his position without police intervention. Contrast it with the fact that Mutthalik does not even officially represent any religious community. But of course, I totally agree that his Manglore pub attack thing needs to be exposed and vocally criticized by the media, the way they did.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        The definition of what is “far” right keeps changing with the times. Sati I think has fallen off the spectrum so that now even “far far” right wingers don’t see it as an option. But then again, when someone praises the vedic times and quotes great moral lessons from scriptures where sati was prevalent, it would be dishonest for them to think that Sati is wrong.

        I’m being charitable to them here by saying they don’t support Sati. I could be wrong. Female infanticide though was never propagated in Hindu scripture. It was never a “tradition.” If you show me some scripture where it’s advocated, I’ll change my view.

        Asking for a video proof is placing too high a burden of proof that even courts don’t require. What is needed is proof “beyond reasonable doubt” which the court used to convict the relatives of a murdered girl to death.

        If you don’t believe in the 77% surveys, that’s ok. But there’s no smoke without fire and even if it’s way off the mark, are you saying the opposite is true? Are you actually denying that there’s widespread support for the Khap panchayats in that region?

        Murder takes a lot of guts. Murdering your own children entails even more emotional stress. For them to have still been murdered means that there must have been an even greater pressure from the other side. Where can that pressure come from if not from a very large collection of people? No one kills their children for fun.

        I’m not sure whether to take you seriously when you question whether or not the khaps have widespread support in Harayana. Study after study by various organizations and even international ones agree on this. The relatives themselves say that their village supported them. The khaps are on record advocating murder – and they are looked up to in their area. There are videos of large numbers of people sitting around showing support for the khaps diktats. The khaps tried to march on Parliament unless their inane demands were met. I don’t know what more proof you want.

        What IP said about the BJP etc really has nothing to do with me. I’m loathe to make an issue like this into a partisan one. This has nothing to do with the Congress or the BJP or any other party. I really don’t care.

        I also happen to know that a lot of people are the same. I visit right wing blogs frequently just to keep an eye on them and I know their usernames. After a month or so, it’s pretty obvious that the same people frequent these places. Moreover, using Google Analytics I can see where they came from, which sites they were viewing before they came to mine, and if I want, I can even analyse IP addresses to cross reference. I can assure you, that there is a massive overlap of audience on places like sandeepweb.com and those who’ve commented on the khap article.

        Some months ago, I tried talking to right wing bloggers. I was polite, unoffensive and unchallenging and all I got was abuse. Go through the link, visit the place where I tried to talk to them for five days and over 200 comments and judge for yourself.

        Finally, I still hold that acts of minorities against majorities will at the most make me raise an eyebrow – and not make me think that it could get out of hand…

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I’m probably missing a lot of context here but….

        man, did I do a double take when I read that you would be uninterested in murder of a hetero person by a homo person and worried by a slap in the reverse direction!!

        Ketan set this choice up and you’re maybe “taking the dare” so to speak. fog of net debate :-) perhaps? Let me attempt to retrieve this argument in the following way:

        From my attempts to context this you guys are talking about communalism in code (right?). I will try to post the link to the very informative piece from Indian Muslims about how the very same mindset of othering/ chauvinism can lead to:

        – “nationalism” in majority community
        – “secessionism” in minority community

        and per the author there (and I quite agree with him) both are dangerous. Of these there is a higher degree of danger in majority communalism since “nationalism” has positive connotations.

        thanks,
        Jai

        Reply

      • In reply to Jai_C

        Jai,

        Thanks for commenting!

        Firstly, I’m not very much in favor of presenting news keeping in mind only the far off trend that could be set in as part of some wild speculation. News is about the present. Analysis & astrology are for the future. All that is part of simple analysis. My point is considering the scale of violence (houses & shops were burned, perhaps a few persons had died), requirement of curfew & flag march, and contrasting it with so many other kind of trivial news, what was the reason for Deganga riots’ such severe underreporting? How was the nature of violence any different from Ayodhya demolition? In fact, in that demolition no person was killed/hurt.

        And even if apply majority-minority concept, Hindus are in minority in 24 Parganas district. And if one talks of trend, then I’ve been told it used to be a Hindu-majority district. So whatever defense one tries to produce for its non-coverage, it’s hardly convincing to me.

        Reply

      • In reply to Jai_C

        And Jai, I’m alright with the suggestions that majoritarian acts of violence need greater focus, what I’m not alright with is the extreme application of its corollary that acts of violence by the minority community must be suppressed to the degree possible, which is what the approach towards Deganga riots exemplifies. You might not be able to get the context ‘cuz of such voluminous comments, but my point was as long as such partisan attitude is displayed, for vast majority of ‘right wingers’ and even for someone like me, it’d be difficult to believe that the media’s motivations, incentives & system of ethics are acceptable. Which would in turn make me suspicious of driving forces behind such inscrutable choices.

        Reply

      • In reply to Jai_C

        I don’t think I said minority violence should be suppressed! I said that majority violence should get more focus – in fact that’s the option I selected on Ketan’s poll.

        I feel majority violence can turn into a trend which is socially acceptable. Minority violence…well, by definition it can’t become a trend so the police can handle it. I won’t get sleepless nights thinking about it.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        I too have not attributed to you the idea that minority violence should be suppressed. I have clearly stated that “greater coverage and focus on violence by majority” translates as a corollary to “relatively less coverage and focus on violence by minority”. Is my interpretation incorrect till this point?

        And not covering Deganga riots (and also that of Bareilly and Miraj-Sangli) happens to be an extreme interpretation of the above corollary. Perhaps, you won’t get sleepless nights. But those who underwent that, and especially the Hindus who (from what I could gather on asking few people) are in minority over there and are indeed getting sleepless nights. They did not celebrate Durga Puja, if sources are to be believed. How are their pain and apprehensions not worthy of being covered?

        Sorry, if my above argument sounded like a straw man. But, unless and until it is precisely the interpretation I laid out above is used, there is no justification of so little coverage of the aforementioned riots, and in contrast such high-pitched coverage of the Babri demolition in which no person had died and no personal property was damaged.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        I agree – the Deganga riots should definitely by covered well.

        But when you say less coverage, what are you comparing it to? The Babri demolition was planned out far in advance with public statements and rhetoric by top political leaders. It was much more “open” and brazen.

        Which incident of Hindu violence are you referring to which got more coverage and was similar in scope to deganga? (Dozens injured and none killed)

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Bhagwad,

        Whether Babri Mosque was demolished as part of planning or not is being decided by the Court of Law. So, it might or might not have been planned. But assuming the demolition was planned, what about Deganga riot? What do you or I know about the event to claim that it was not planned, unless and until we know the nature of provocation or lack thereof, to have caused such an assault against the Hindus? Planned attack or otherwise, one against human beings is much more serious to me than that against an inanimate building.

        “Which incident of Hindu violence are you referring to which got more coverage and was similar in scope to deganga? (Dozens injured and none killed)”.

        I’m referring to Babri Mosque demolition. In it none was injured. And an injured person is much more serious than destruction of a dilapidated building. And the number of injuries were much more than one. If dozens were killed, and RAF had to be called in to reign in the riots along with imposition of curfew, then I’m not sure that none were killed, unless and until you have access to some reliable account on it. And even if none were killed, such a serious law and order crisis merits prominent highlighting.

        “There was coverage. Less coverage doesn’t mean no coverage.”

        Yes of course, there was coverage (that is how I came to know about the Deganga riots in the first place!), but not on NDTV at least, and in all likelihood nor on NewsX (and if they might have covered it, definitely it was not on prime time, unlike Ayodhya debate). And compared to coverage on Babri demolition, this coverage was nothing when it is obvious that the damage done in riots was incomparable with that done in the demolition.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        It’s not a question of how much damage. My point is proved by the fact that the country has a huge interest in the Babri Demolition even 20 years after the incident. Everyone is talking about it and indeed it was of such political importance that it gave the BJP a massive boost and possible allowed it to come to power once.

        Do you think the Deganga riots will have such an impact on the country? It’s hardly a surprise that the Babri demolition got so much coverage. If I was running a news channel, I would cover it too. And then you would accuse me of being bribed!

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Bhagwad,

        “Two columns of army were deployed there after paramilitary forces failed to control violence following the killing of a man on Tuesday.”

        “One person was killed and 25 others, including a DSP and seven policemen, injured in the violence after several places of worship were desecrated following clashes between two groups.”

        Above is from Outlook magazine (click) attributed to the PTI.

        And no surprise, even to find this piece of reliable information, I had to search a lot. You can gauge the severity of violence from the fact that seven policemen were injured in the process.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        But I’m not disputing that. In India, lots of violent incidents aren’t given coverage. When soldiers are killed on the borders, only a passing mention is made in the papers.

        For something to be given more coverage, the violence has to be either extreme – which it wasn’t in this case since I haven’t heard of anyone being killed, or it has to have another important angle.

        You still have given me an example of Hindu violence on a comparable scale and quality to Deganga that was given disproportional coverage.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Bhagwad,

        What gets covered to what degree is ultimately decided by the media. If they would have chosen to ‘move on’ as the channels were urging the viewers to, then there shouldn’t have been such a persistent coverage thereafter.

        Yes, if I were to not know you personally, and if I would see that you claim that (presumably planned) demolition of an unused Mosque is much more serious than (presumably planned) killing and injuring of a particular community members to the extent that in aftermath of that they cannot even celebrate openly their most important festival in their native land, then I’m afraid I would be quite suspicious of your having ulterior motives. For me, the lives of Hindus of Deganga have been scarred much more than demolition of Mosque had done to Muslims. And even if we leave this debate of majority-minority for the time being, it should not come as a surprise that inter-faith harmony in Deganga has been deeply affected, which is a serious issue in itself. Such damage of harmony is very likely to cause future violence.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        “The lives of Hindus of Deganga have been scarred much more than demolition of Mosque had done to Muslims.”

        I’ve never denied this. I repeat once again, that it wasn’t the quantity of the violence but the quality of the Babri demolition that merited such a response. Someone like Muthalik for example went out of his way to inform the press before he did what he did. I suspect that the same was true of the Babri demolition. It’s a question of the amount of brazenness. Advani is on tape and I don’t think he’s ashamed of it.

        And as you can guess, I’m not being paid by anyone to think like this. So if I (and presumably many others) can think like this, perhaps you’re open to the idea that it’s not necessarily illegal bribery that’s the cause?

        And of course, you have to compare fairly. Give me an example of Hindu violence against Muslims on the same scale and type as Deganga which has been given excess coverage.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Bhagwad,

        “Two columns of army were deployed there after paramilitary forces failed to control violence following the killing of a man on Tuesday.”

        “One person was killed and 25 others, including a DSP and seven policemen, injured in the violence after several places of worship were desecrated following clashes between two groups.”

        “When soldiers are killed on the borders, only a passing mention is made in the papers.”

        A soldier killed at the border is expected given the relations between India and Pakistan.

        Yes, to me the nature of violence in Deganga is quite extraordinary as it had led to killing, injuries, loss of property, curfew, firing by RAF, injuring of policemen. How regular are these incidents in India? It is quite extraordinary, unless someone suggests that Hindus getting killed and injured is alright as they are the majority in the rest of the country. E.g., when MNS workers had attacked a few north Indians, there was much significant coverage than that of Deganga, in which no person was killed, and no policeman was injured. Why did it warrant greater coverage than Deganga riot?

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Bhagwad,

        I won’t be able to give you example of comparable Hindu violence, except the Babri Mosque demolition, in which no person was killed or injured. Because my general knowledge in these matters is very low. Much greater brazenness was involved in Deganga riots. I don’t think people get killed and injured, idols get desecrated, policemen are hurt without incredible degree of brazenness.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Again, the MNS is a political organization who make it a point of consistently targeting North Indians shamelessly, brazenly, and without fear of consequences as if it’s their right. Centrally controlled and planned.

        Very different from the Deganga riots.

        If anything, this proves my point that it’s not Hindu violence that gets excess coverage, but all such politically planned violence since attacks on North Indians were religion agnostic.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        But in order to prove your case, you need to give examples of comparable Hindu violence do you not?

        We’re talking political brazenness. Did the leader of Deganga call the press before indulging in violence? Did he make speeches later telling the whole country how he taught Hindus a “lesson”? Did the CM of the state imply that the violence was ok? (As Modi did with his “Equal and opposite” comment?)

        The Pune blasts were very different:

        1. 17 people killed
        2. Terrorism angle
        3. German Bakery – a possible International angle

        Not in the same leage.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Bhagwad,

        This is the exact statement by Modi: “Kriya pratikriya ki chain chal rahi hai. Hum chahate hain ki na kriya ho aur na pratikriya”

        And that too, I have taken it from a website run by Citizens of Justice and Peace (click). I don’t see any justification in Modi’s statement. All he’s seeming to say is that violence has assumed a chain reaction. What is reaction today, is next getting reacted against, and that he’d like both to stop. The web site claims it was in context of only Ehsaan Jafri murder, but if that were the case he would have said, “kriya hui aur pratikriya toh honi hi thi”, he would not have invoked the analogy of chain-reaction, by which he is alluding to the challenge posed in controlling the situation.

        1. 17 people killed –> You said scale of violence is non-issue when it comes to news-selection (e.g., Malegaon blasts had involved killing of fewer people; Banglore blasts – none were killed).
        2. Terrorism angle –> Is violence of interest only when terrorism is involved?
        3. German Bakery – a possible International angle –> Why should violence emanating within India be considered relatively insignificant?

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Bhagwad,

        And if the DSP was also involved, I would consider the people who had indulged in violence (irrespective of their religion) quite brazen. Just because cameras did not catch these acts does not make them whatever is antonym of ‘brazen’.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        It’s not just Modi. There are lots of RSS/VHP people who also make hate speeches and even people like Vajpayee and Advani have done so. Even a cursory search on Youtube will show these to you.

        Now show me Muslim leaders making similar public speeches against Hindus. Show me the leader of any important party doing this. It’s the political angle that allows us to differentiate between the incidents here.

        The scale of violence isn’t important within limits obviously. Where is one and where is seventeen? And that too with just one bomb. Terrorism is all the rage these days. Just a reflection of how the public feels about it.

        But you’re not suggesting the media is getting bribed to give excessive coverage to terrorism are you?

        The fact that cameras didn’t catch them means they weren’t seeking publicity. I’m talking political brazenness.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Bhagwad,

        Where have Vajpayee and Advani called for violence against Muslims? I couldn’t find such videos on cursory googling.

        Just like how you say, there’s lot of difference between “one and seventeen”, there’s lot of difference between “none dead v/s one dead and several injured”.

        And even when Ayodhya has been discussed, it’s never been the brazen speeches of Vajpayee and/or Advani, it’s been the idea that it was ‘persecution’ of Muslims.

        I don’t expect people to catch leaders to be caught making inflammatory speeches while riots are going on.

        And lastly, how is it a case that if a brazen speech is not made, violence committed somehow becomes less violent?

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        “Where have Vajpayee and Advani called for violence against Muslims?”

        I was talking about hate speeches – not incitation to violence. Are you actually denying that senior leaders of Hindu political parties have made inflammatory speeches to large numbers of people in public?

        “Just like how you say, there’s lot of difference between “one and seventeen”, there’s lot of difference between “none dead v/s one dead and several injured”.”

        There are no rules for this. Certainly it’s not black and white to the extent that you claim that the media is being bribed by the Nehru-Gandhi family to cover one event and not the next without any evidence or credible accusations.

        “I don’t expect people to catch leaders to be caught making inflammatory speeches while riots are going on.”

        Sorry, didn’t understand that.

        “And lastly, how is it a case that if a brazen speech is not made, violence committed somehow becomes less violent?”

        I don’t think I made that claim.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Bhagwad,

        “Are you actually denying that senior leaders of Hindu political parties have made inflammatory speeches to large numbers of people in public?”

        So, inflaming Hindus into doing what? Moreover, they may have or they may not have made inflammatory speech. But in that case that inflammatory speech must become the subject matter of news coverage, not the Babri demolition.

        I still stand by the the comparison between “zero death v/s one death and several injured”. Of course, it’s not that they were covered on comparable footing. The manner in which they’ve been compared is also disparately different. In fact, news channels did not even cover Deganga. Whereas, Ayodhya’s been hardly out of news for more than a month despite the fact that it’s almost two decades old event and no one in was killed/injured in the event.

        That Nehru-Gandhi family could be bribing is the best hypothesis, and mind you, I’m not saying that only on the basis of non-coverage of Deganga riots, but also several other factors like how SG was interviewed after passage of Women’s reservation bill in RS and Rahul G. was covered when he’d come to Mumbai.

        ““And lastly, how is it a case that if a brazen speech is not made, violence committed somehow becomes less violent?”

        I don’t think I made that claim.”

        If you’re not making such a claim then what is the special significance of brazenness in speech against brazenness in action?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “So, inflaming Hindus into doing what?”

        Let’s be clear on what we’re discussing. Certain types of violence get more coverage because they’re part of a larger set of operations – speech making, planning, centralized command etc. In fact, it’s like the difference between the mafia and independent criminals.

        So while the crimes of independent criminals receive the same attention judicially, people react more strongly to the mafia. It’s not exactly the same thing, but I’m getting the idea across to you.

        “But in that case that inflammatory speech must become the subject matter of news coverage, not the Babri demolition.”

        Judicially yes. In the public sphere, no. I want to hear them clubbed together. The media gives me that. If enough people want it otherwise, newspapers will change their strategy.

        “Whereas, Ayodhya’s been hardly out of news for more than a month”

        People are interested. If you feel that’s a media creation, just look at the number of independent bloggers and opinion writers who work independently. There’s no monopoly on the media. Anyone can go out and start their own business if they feel they can do a better job and people who share your view can subscribe.

        The media isn’t performing a social service.

        “That Nehru-Gandhi family could be bribing is the best hypothesis”

        I can confidently tell you that I’m not being bribed by Sonial Gandhi. There are lots of others like me. I think we can find a better hypothesis than one which has no proof and is reached only by picking up little things here and there. Humans aren’t so intelligent so as to accurately and reliably find out what’s happening on a large scale from several small independent incidents. That happens in comics, not in real life.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        You said: “Certain types of violence get more coverage because they are (and not even “could be”) part of a larger set of operations – speech making, planning, centralized command etc.”

        You also said: “I think we can find a better hypothesis than one which has no proof and is reached only by picking up little things here and there. Humans aren’t so intelligent so as to accurately and reliably find out what’s happening on a large scale from several small independent incidents. That happens in comics, not in real life.”

        Both assertions are quite contradictory as I see them. You have no problems seeing a pattern when talking of certain speeches that don’t even call for violence and connecting them with actual commission of violence, whereas you find it logically flawed that I relate certain instances of biased, sensationalist and dishonest news-presentation with with a possibility of being paid to do so.

        Moreover, some of the instances like the coverage of Rahul G’s Mumbai trip and 21 March-Modi-summons were not even “little things” as you put them, because it was precisely these news channels that offered the events (or rather non-event in case of latter) such great importance that the adjective “little” seems out of place.

        Nevertheless, I repeat, it is not just the Nehru-Gandhi family that might be indulging in this, but I have asserted several times, it must be many, many entities, including industrialists, actors, and even BJP, including Narendra Modi. It’s just that among political entities greatest resources are at disposal of the Nehru-Gandhi family, and hence more news end up benefiting them than their rivals.

        “People are interested. If you feel that’s a media creation, just look at the number of independent bloggers and opinion writers who work independently.”

        Whatever media makes the headlines gets discussed in the blogs. Whatever media chooses to not make a headline of, will be discussed very little, because it is few people who will come to know of it.

        “There’s no monopoly on the media. Anyone can go out and start their own business if they feel they can do a better job and people who share your view can subscribe.”

        I do not agree. With virtually no capital in hand, opening a media company is one thing, but to be able to sustain the business and keep it profitable is entirely different thing. Somehow, people have brand loyalties. I know so many people who would only buy Nokia phones, for instance, without even exploring those of other companies. Combine this with the fact that many, many Indians just gloss over the headlines and that is their news. Very few people read the text, and even fewer analyze the implications of what is written. This is because, news is thought of as some sort of hobby, and thus many people do not even realize how news can shape their opinions. Moreover, if one is a small-time media enterprise whose voice does not reach many, then no entity would approach them to have their image improved through manipulating news, greatly cutting down their source of revenue. It is for this reason small-time startups are unlikely to succeed or move beyond a niche audience.

        “I can confidently tell you that I’m not being bribed by Sonial Gandhi.”

        Yes, you’re not being bribed, but you’re also bent on defending whatever the media does in instances that I point out as departures from what most people as well as I would expect. I have seen you shift your position (in terms of what ought to be the inclusion and exclusion criteria for a news channel to choose news to present) so much on Deganga riot, that that there is little consistency left in your argument on the issue of Deganga (at least that is what I feel).

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I feel we’re going round in circles. You already know my views on the financials of the media and the other points you mention can be applied to many other industries – none of which has stopped competition from springing up. If not a person, an existing business can start a newspaper. There are so many ways it can be done and like I’ve said before, there’s no need for bribes to be profitable.

        It’s obvious that planning was part of it. There’s no other way so many people could have got together to destroy the babri. Left to themselves, no one would even care.

        The media both shapes and is shaped by public opinion. They feed off each other. The media sees what people are talking about and highlight that and the circle closes. Nothing is as simple as you say.

        I’m not bent on defending the media. I’m saying that there’s no pattern to be drawn which shows that the Gandhi-Nehru family is having an undue influence. If allparties are bribing the media I’m OK with that since it balances out by and large. But the way you put it, it seems as if the media is strangled by one entity which is surely not the case.

        Reply

  6. I think you have less to complain about yet in the Indian scene…you should see some Western forums…pure unadulterated **** flung across cyberspace right thru your monitor on to your face…I had to leave a few poetry sites bcoz of it!

    Reply

  7. I perfectly understand what you are saying. Most of these comments in my blog comes from the religious right. When confronted with a statement or a fact that is contradictory to what they believe in, a few of them resort to name calling and slander rather than trying to reason and debate politely.

    Reply

    • In reply to Hari

      In my experience, they can get abusive even if they don’t come across facts that are contradictory to what they believe! What’s required is just an opinion that is contradictory to theirs.

      Reply

  8. I have not had abusive comments so far but then I am not an extreme liberal either, just a regular middle of the road liberal with a view point. I think I would delete them and see how I can publish something like “Author has deleted comment by XYZ blogger due to lack of courtesy. This author is too courteous to call that person what she might have wanted to immediately after reading the comment.”

    The only word right now that makes me see red is ‘pseudo-secularists’, a word used for anyone who is from a majority community making a point against that majority community. I would have called that honest debate and some diversity of views. But hey, what do pseudo people know anyways?! :-D

    p.s.: Are super long comments also testosterone related? See some essays up here. :-D

    Reply

    • In reply to Sangitha

      Sangitha,

      “Are super long comments also testosterone related? See some essays up here.”

      The convention of considering null hypothesis to be true by default rules out that possibility. If you use only this blog post to draw your data from, then there would sampling errors! :P

      Reply

      • In reply to Sangitha

        Sangitha,

        Actually, you’re right! I’ve been wasting too much time on this particular issue (of media’s manner of functioning) with Bhagwad.

        When I was talking of “sampling error” that was in response to use of “testosterone”. And my point was, if you look outside of Bhagwad’s blog and even outside of this blog post itself, you’ll find long comments by women also (who tend to have much lower level of testosterone than males). :)

        And it’s perfectly alright that you kid, in fact, it is quite welcome, though I prefer that I be addressed directly, as I do not love finding cryptic messages in what people say except for when it comes to the media and public figures. Of course this I say, assuming you’re not a public figure yet. :P

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        Yes, I think we can stop arguing (and I also agree we’re going in great round circles – something you said above). I would be less than honest if I say that I do not harbor the temptation of having the last word (referring to the last comment you made above), but with great emotional effort I’m telling myself I will not give into that temptation! :P

        Thanks for all the time, effort and patience!

        By the by, I must also thank Sangitha for prompting me to think on these lines. :D I guess, “testosterone” always works, one way or the other. ;)

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        I know how tough it must be to not have the last word :)

        Tell you what. Since you’re the guest, go ahead and write one more comment to which I won’t reply. I think it’s only fair.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Bhagwad,

        No thanks, it’s alright; am not in the mood! :P

        Actually, as I was typing the above comment, I realized that we’d both got quite off-mark. More than 90% of text has nothing to do with “abuses in blog comments”! :D

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        In my experience, courtesy has always worked, at least on twitter. In fact, so much so that when I was abused by a group, my persistence made other people in that group ‘disown’ the chief abuser.

        But I think it is difficult when you’re the only one defending a position. On twitter I have the benefit of support of other people with who I interact quite regularly.

        Plus, there is one more difference, somehow degree of anonymity is lesser on twitter compared to blogs like that of SandeepWeb. Also, a new entrant to an otherwise highly commented upon blog is seen as an outsider. If it were to be a case that one comments on a few posts on a particular blog, and then expresses a contrarian view, then at least the older commentators deal with the person with lot more respect.

        These are just my observations+speculations, & in no way meant to justify abuse. Of course, I would always prefer that an idea be dealt with, rather than the person bringing out that idea. But people tend to get more abusive, when they find that the idea is so polar opposite to their own, that they cannot believe the one bringing in that idea to be sincere. And perceived insincerity is dealt with more harshly.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        That’s remarkably insightful actually – the part where abuse occurs when it’s believed the other person isn’t sincere.

        Now that you mention it, I can recollect several sentences accusing me of insincerity. Even in the sample above, there are phrases like “mask of goodness and patriotism”, “image of a perfect writer who actually r antI Indian pseudo secularS” and “truth blockers”

        Hmm. So people actually find it tough to believe that there are those who don’t care about religion and who view all humans through the same lens. I wonder what that says about them…

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        “I wonder what that says about them…”

        Actually Bhagwad, except for when people have a definite incentive to be dishonest (be it gain of something or prevention of a loss), people are honest to themselves in what they believe. In fact, you would be surprised to know that the reason I argue (or shall I put that in past tense? ;) ) with you so much on the issue of media is not so much to have the last word, but simply because I believe you to be sincere and also logical. If I were to consider you to be any lesser on the above two counts (‘sincerity’ and ‘logic’) I would find it pointless to argue with you.

        In what follows I repeat an idea I had expressed on some other post of yours, but I don’t remember which one, perhaps again the one to do with the media bias!!!

        The simplest reason people are so defensive about their beliefs is because they would have ‘invested’ their past decisions based on them. Now, these decisions need not be concrete actions, but something as simple as “I will not vote for so and so party” So, suddenly if they are made to believe that substantial or at least some portions of what they had been believed was flawed, then it also means that that portion of their life was lived on flawed terms/premises. This, in turn, if is related to a big decision would be also seen as ‘wastage’ of life. But if the issue is smaller and trivial, then it might be easier to accept that one’s belief was flawed.

        But then there is one more very important thing – what is “I”? Is it the face you see in the mirror, your skin, your liver, bones, no, right? What defines a person are their emotions, thoughts, (consequent) beliefs, words and actions. Others know a person through ‘words’ and ‘actions’, but a person identifies with the self through their own ’emotions’, ‘thoughts’ and ‘beliefs’. If someone points out that the last three are ‘flawed’, then?

        Our society puts high premium on being ‘right’. Of course, this ‘right’ is framed by a well-accepted standards to judge things by. How these become well-accepted is a different matter, altogether. But the consequence of this excessive rewarding (you score more more marks in exam if you’re ‘right’, you win a singing competition if you sing ‘right’, you take a wicket if you bowl ‘right’) on being right, is the relative penalty on being ‘wrong’ (you ‘lose’ marks if you are ‘wrong’, you lose a singing competition, et cetra).

        So, right from the childhood people are conditioned to believe that they must be ‘right’, and that it is drastically cataclysmal if they’re proven wrong. So, being ‘right’ becomes the end in itself rather being a means to gaining something more desirable.

        Now taking into consideration all that I said above, what would be the most reflexive response to being pointed out that someone’s wrong? It would surely be denial. Some would argue against it, some would try to cut out the contending assertion. But just like a person identifies the ‘self’ with one’s emotions, beliefs and thoughts, others identify you with your words and actions. For them, your words (and actions, if they know you personally or if your actions impact them) and ‘you’ are one and the same. So, when they want to attack an idea presented by you, they end up attacking you.

        In fact, I believe it takes tremendous amount of de-conditioning and un-learning to come to terms with the idea that a person and their words and actions are not one and the same. So, there is nothing unexpected with who would attack you instead of your ideas and logic.

        It should be no surprise that religious bigotry manifests itself not in logical dismissal of other religions’ tenets, but elimination of ones following those tenets. This is analogous: “attacking an idea = attacking the person who follows it” –> “attacking a religion = attacking the person following that religion”. Of course, with time our social practices, with greater emphasis on logic-based debates are forcing us to see that distinction.

        So, given the above facts, if someone knows you for some time, they would know that you are more than the idea that the other person is opposed to, so it would be difficult to make the above equivalence which leads people to abuse.

        Lastly, you said, “So people actually find it tough to believe that there are those who don’t care about religion and who view all humans through the same lens”

        Let me refine the above, if you so allow. “So, people actually find it tough to believe that there are those whose opinions differ from theirs”. These are the people who believe that their religion (not necessarily the congenital religion, but including the fuzzy all-religions-teach-love-there-is-one-true-god-religion) is the best that ever was. These are the people who have invested their decisions and hatred in generalizing about people. So, if you tell them that their religion is wrong, irrespective of how they respond to you, surely they would surely experience a cognitive dissonance, provided they believe you to be sincere. But one of the psychological strategies to guard one’s convictions (on which one would have based decisions as well as one’s life) is to believe that the other person is being insincere! So, the phenomenon of believing that the other person is insincere when he expresses an opinion that is so diametrically opposite that no kind of reconciliation were ever possible is quite a natural one, as I see it.

        It’s something like this: how could 2+2 = 3 (my belief) and 2+2 = 5 (his belief) both be correct in our calculation, and yet come up with different answers at the same time?! Surely, I can’t be wrong, ‘cuz each time I’ve been wrong in the past, my ass has been kicked! ;)

        Of course, it’s a bit more complex than above, viz., 2+2 = 4!

        What all I have typed above is not read anywhere, just an outcome of my introspection (from observing my own mental reactions) and observing others, so is purely conjectural. Do let me what do you feel.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        I think you make some important points:

        1. People define themselves based on nationality, religion, or holding some “ideas.” If these are threatened, their identity is threatened and it provokes a violent and unpleasant emotional response.

        2. People identify others completely based on their ideas. So if a right wing person disagrees with Shobha De, she becomes a bitch as if her entire life is to be judged on that one thing.

        In relation to your point about right and wrong, I also think people are unwilling to accept that there are shades of gray. I’ve seen people associate Muslims with evil – never taking into consideration that they may be loving parents, may donate to charity, and may be faithful friends. It’s easy to demonize someone. Conversely it’s easy to make someone into a saint.

        So then our reactions get polarized into two channels – violent hatred or excessive adulation.

        Reply

Leave a Comment