Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Geometry of field setting - India missed having the best possible captain :)  (Read 9027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

justforkix

  • Global Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,896

In my case, I take most teasing in a sportive manner - if I started believing DD and Kix, then I must think I am really dumb! LOL  :). But, I have my achievements over different phases of my life and career and those achievements have built self-belief in me...I dont take this teasing seriously, coz I know my abilities and achievements. But, I find people sometimes take teasing in a very personal manner.

LOL - you are not dumb. Just TL and luminously challenged  :P :P
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

toney:

Quote
Pretty far fetched allegations. About the lack of condemnation: so what? I didnt understand your point, kban. Does a passive audience mean that any of us actually agreed with all those hooligans? Does each one of us actually protest every injustice being committed in the world? What about the lack of condemnation for the opposite? If you really dont remember, there was a period of absolute mayhem here by a select few because of perceived injustice against Bengal on Prem's sightscreen. I know at least a couple of people who were really disgusted by that and stopped visiting the DG. Sadly, that was a loss for the rest of us simply because we lose some good chances for different views.

Actually they are not far fetched. You may have missed some of the comments but they were not acceptable under any stretch. SO I stand by what I said there about the level of communalism on display.

No, you are right -not everyone protests every wrong doing. But at some level, at some point  a minimim level of decency should kick in and condemn some happenings. Thats my point.

In saying that I am not accusing anyone per se. Because under the blog format, if you missed one days comments, they got archived and many never bothered to check the previous day's comments --so quite  afew may not have seen it. But that does not mean everyone missed those comments -some definitely did and chose to keep quiet in response to some gutter filth being spewed out.

If you recall the context of my post, you will see that I said everything has a historical context. When a particular community is being trashed, the members of that community feel the insult  -- quite natural. I was speaking from the perception POV -- and in their perception, they notice the insult being heaped with nary a voice of protest from fellow members -- this is what sticks in their mind (the defeaning silence) irrespective of the legitimate causes (blog format of archived comments after a day, people not reading all the comments, busy with work didnt read blog) some might have
had in not complaining.

So my comment was not aimed at castigating or pointing fingers, it was made in the context of explaining how the perceiver forms his / her impression. If you re read my post, this should become clear.

Quote
I am with the Dutch and the Danish on this. As long as something is not meant to solely insult a person, anything goes. I know there is a thin line between good humour and such insults. But even if such a line is breached, the insulted person has no right to respond by launching a counter war of sorts. There are the so called right channels for everything.

Maybe you and I were on different pages. The comments I am referring to had nothing to do with humor or just an insult -- they were vile, uncouth, and classless. There is no other way to describe them. Admittedly they were made by a few people only but as I explained above, such comments followed by zero condemnation creates a perception.

And there was no way to complain, there was no such system at that time.

Anyways, as I explained in my post to fineleg, it was not to rake up an old issue, but to put things in perspective in context of his post, which I thought was well intentioned but extremely simplistic and not entirely reflective of what had happened.
Logged

fineleg

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,358
  • she is the IPL Winnah!

Kban,
what abt what i posted in my post above - i do think u agree with the crux of the matter, just wanted to confirm.
Logged

fineleg

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,358
  • she is the IPL Winnah!

In my case, I take most teasing in a sportive manner - if I started believing DD and Kix, then I must think I am really dumb! LOL  :). But, I have my achievements over different phases of my life and career and those achievements have built self-belief in me...I dont take this teasing seriously, coz I know my abilities and achievements. But, I find people sometimes take teasing in a very personal manner.

LOL - you are not dumb. Just TL and luminously challenged  :P :P

LOL - how does the Univ measure luminosity? We need metrics.
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest

Quote
1. Is a rasgollas joke from CP equivalent to joke on bengal or bengalis? CP as far as I saw in his jokes was making fun of uptightness or extra sensitive nature of some on the DG. They are no way, even remotely related to bengal I think, only CP can confirm it though.

Go back to the origin of the jokes about rasgullahs and see the context they were used in initially along with frequent other references related to bengal. Do not judge the issue based on the rasgullah jokes now being cracked because the tone, tenor, and context are all different.
Please read my comments again, I was referring to CP's jokes only and in the context of a few PMs I exchanged with him, he has no malice about bengal...if some other DG member in some other era made some bengal comments using rasgulah, sorry , it is not relevant to my comment. Rasgullah is not patented to bengal. Irrespective of what someone else said somewhere else, we have to consider the joke in current context. Of course your point is valid if CP himself made any bengal related insulting comments. I am not aware of any such comments from CP


Quote
Speaking of being ultra sensitive, you are in the US aern't you. Why don't you try it  --walk up to an ethnic group and crack a few smart ones at their culinary habits and see if it flies or whether you get accused of being insensitive and probably far worse.
you surprise me, where is your sense of context? this DG world, we do not know each other personally, on top of it, any joke to any stranger is always fraught with offense. oh and yes, I do make such jokes with my social group which includes all nationalities. An american recently told me how Indians must so horny because we reproduce so much, I made fun of rything ranging from obseseness , to culinary habits to unwashed american asses...dude you really surprise me.
Quote
Quote
2. While there is a case to be made for self deprecating jokes, it is entirely different from other set of statements where a person(from bengal) chooses to bring up Bengal in a cricket discussion out of blue moon. To me it is equivalent to any person blaming Bengal for SG issue, both essentially stem from regional bias. I was even Mods bringing up Bengal totally out of context and without any provocation, basically to accuse me of bias against Bengal

Thats the point, nothing was brought out of the blue. Every comment which brought Bengal into the equation was not offensive either. But some were as was the streretyping and implied parochialism, all in the name of actually condemning parochialism.
I don't get your point. plz elaborate. don't you think it is regional bias from a bengali if
I accuse SG of being selfish or past his sell by date, a guy jumps in to say something like , "ofcourse you don't like him afterall he is from bengal"


Quote
I cannot recall attacks on the Indian team unless your definition is criticism of the Indian team in which case I have nothing to say about your equivalence between communalistic attacks and criticism of the Indian team.

Your version of the racist attacks I have always failed to comprehend. If someone says that x number of Indians may be giving a long rope to GC because he is a foreigner or a gora, then you term that as a racist attack. Why is it racist --it is one person's observation of behavior patterns of a portion of the Indian population when they interact with westerners. Of course you do not subscribe to that either as evidenced by your numerous posts about your view of colonial hangover (does not exist as per you). Fine, why can it not be a difference of opinion between how you view it or how the other person views it -- I for the world of me fail to see how it qualifies as racism.

Funny you should bring up the Eden Garden crowd. Why was that particular crowd behavior bad as opposed to say the Bangalore crowd or the Mumbai crowd ? I did not hear any condemnations then -- see its all SG centric.

When SRT is booed, muted reaction / outrage. When SG is booed, no outrage but if GC and RD are booed because SG is not in the team, the demand for condemnation from rooftops is defeaning.

And no one cited Mumbai to exonerate Eden. Mumbai happened later (refreshing the timeline for you). People cited Mumbai to point out the hypocrisy in castigating Eden while keeping mum about Mumbai. There is a difference between rationalization and pointing out double standards.

For the record, I did not support the Eden crowd (whichever sections did it, for I know for a fact the entire crowd was not involved).

But taking a contrarian position -- what obligates a crowd to only shower praise on the players or the team ? What prevents them from criticizing players not playing well or doing what they didn't approve. Isn't that the nature of sports ? Isn't that the argument used on this DG --we are objective, we supported SG when he was good, now he is not, so he does not belong. So whats sauce for the goose (DG fans) is not sauce for the *er (fans in the stands in Eden, Bangalore, or Mumabi) ?

And if you are so bothered about outrage, where was the outrage when the national coach flipped off a crowd (please do not say the crowd deserved it for booing the team because this happened on the day before the match after a practice session) ? Ah I see, its acceptable  --the finger flipping because some on this DG are used to doing it all the time, never mind the fact that it is neither acceptable in our culture or society nor in Western society where the gesture originated (polite society that is).
nothing much to say except you somehow chose to take my words out of context. "colonial hangover or racist " is my comments, you chose to equate colonial hangover with racism and went on to build your logic. There were racist , skin color based attacks on GC and there were elaborate colonial hangover based reasonings built to put down GC, I condemn  both. Plz read my comments again if you stick with your above statements, I will respond with a more elaborate explaination.
Logged

ThankYouChappel

  • One Day Star
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323

Well I see a trend of the same old stuff happening again but what I want to say is that I am not trying to defend this or that behavior here..

While on one hand the people on one side wants it to be condemned that people on one side didnt give enough attention to the racist treatment inflicted on one side of the crowd.

Ohh arent these the same guys who started connecting the dots on this thread.. Isnt it a shame that "connecting the dots" doesnt mean the same thing as "Rasagullas.. "..

Ohh yes, this is what I feel.. they were commies.. who came out as commies just to support a guy because he is the "Lion of the land" and wont gave squats to that "Ducks are one too many and far too frequent.." or "Indian team was losing" and "We gotta change a few things.." here

On the other hand.. yes it is true.. It was based on regionalism.. and who were these guys.. same guys like Azhar who said,"I am a victim because I am a muslim".. same card.. Hey dud, you were captain of the same team for many long years approx.. and wah.. You were the same  "Lion of the Land" then and the land that is hated by the majority crowd just because its the land of "Rasgullas..".. common! Learn to believe that no sportsman is unmatched and they have a shelf life and they got to be discarded..

However I ask the accusers why are you so apologetic afterall? We all love our land and we should.. "Isnt Mumbai as bad.." means "Hey You know we are commies" but "arent you as bad?"

 
Logged

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649

I just got back here and saw this thread. Now I wish I had been following this earlier since I need to run.

I think Flute and Tony aptly put most of how I feel about Rasgullah jokes.

Kban, if my Rasgullah jokes are an insult to Bengalis then atleast in my opinion nothing humourous (or let me change that attempt at humor) should be said in this DG ever. This includes Ruchir's awesome impersonations of Mangal Pandey (insults some east UP or Biharis somewhere). Jiet's awesome parodies of many different characters etc etc.

FWIW, I grew up eating Rasgullahs. Its an Indian sweet. May have a Bengali Origin but I consider it an Indian sweet (as I consider Tagore to be an Indian poet not a Bengali poet becuase he was an Indian first).

If everyone was as sensitive as you guys are being (and here I AM pointing to the Bengalis on the board) then no joke could ever be told. Wasnt there a Surd joke thread?

You like or not like my humor. But my attempts at these Rasgullah jokes are just that JOKE. Since I did notice that they bother Dex a lot more I kind of stuck to them.

To make a whole thread out of how my jokes are insulting to Bengal is intself an insult to Bengal!!!!

I wish I had more time to write. this is a good topic for me to write my own version of Ramayana!

Rasgullahs Stink!!!!! (Happy Dex)
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

CP:

Quote
I just got back here and saw this thread. Now I wish I had been following this earlier since I need to run.

I think Flute and Tony aptly put most of how I feel about Rasgullah jokes.

Kban, if my Rasgullah jokes are an insult to Bengalis then atleast in my opinion nothing humourous (or let me change that attempt at humor) should be said in this DG ever. This includes Ruchir's awesome impersonations of Mangal Pandey (insults some east UP or Biharis somewhere). Jiet's awesome parodies of many different characters etc etc.

FWIW, I grew up eating Rasgullahs. Its an Indian sweet. May have a Bengali Origin but I consider it an Indian sweet (as I consider Tagore to be an Indian poet not a Bengali poet becuase he was an Indian first).

If everyone was as sensitive as you guys are being (and here I AM pointing to the Bengalis on the board) then no joke could ever be told. Wasnt there a Surd joke thread?

You like or not like my humor. But my attempts at these Rasgullah jokes are just that JOKE. Since I did notice that they bother Dex a lot more I kind of stuck to them.

To make a whole thread out of how my jokes are insulting to Bengal is intself an insult to Bengal!!!!

I wish I had more time to write. this is a good topic for me to write my own version of Ramayana!

Rasgullahs Stink!!!!! (Happy Dex)

First of all, your rasgullah jokes now and your rasgullah jokes back a long time ago are different.

Now it is in the nature of bantering / teasing.

Whereas in the past you would use that and bay of bengal as a punch line for points you made about SG,  SG fans, or the protests when SG was not selected.

Personally, I did not care back then and still do not. But as an admin, I received numerous complaints where people interpreted the context and the nature of your comments as being ethnically insensitive.

I believe quite a few people even brought that out on open threads and expressed their displeasure to you. In response, you explained your POV (the one you have explained above --for the most part) and that was that.

I am not accusing you of having made a comment with regional overtones (rasgullah comments in the past) but the fact remains certan comments can be offensive even if not intended that way by the source. In matters like these, perception of the offended party is always a major issue and people who complained felt that way about those comments.

What happens now (again I am going by PM's I have received) is that your recent utterances of rasgullah get immediately linked to earlier references, references which were found to be offensive. And several members think that you continue to flaunt your disregard for their thoughts by still talking about rasgullahs, although in a much milder context.

So if you are wondering why many have objected to the use of that term, there is your explanation  --based on what I have read from members.

To summarize:
1) IMO, your comments now and your comments then had different contexts and emphasis
2) I have always taken you at your word that the rasgullah term that you use is not meant to cause offense
3) Irrespective of your non harmful intentions (per your testimony which I accept) there were a significant number of people who did not like that.

and finally, this issue came up in context of a fineleg post.

Hope this clarifies.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

fineleg:


We agree on the crux of the matter. Again, the only reason I interjected was because your first post, while well intentioned, was not reflective of what happened on the forum.
Logged

fineleg

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,358
  • she is the IPL Winnah!

Kban,
One clarification - before my post, there was an exchange going on between some members abt mallu and bong - nothing serious, some banter...but in that discussion, there was a hint of why is it a BIG deal if someone talks abt bongs, and NOT a big deal if someone else talks abt bongs...why that difference in treatment? My thoughts were based on that.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

flute:

Quote
Please read my comments again, I was referring to CP's jokes only and in the context of a few PMs I exchanged with him, he has no malice about bengal...if some other DG member in some other era made some bengal comments using rasgulah, sorry , it is not relevant to my comment. Rasgullah is not patented to bengal. Irrespective of what someone else said somewhere else, we have to consider the joke in current context. Of course your point is valid if CP himself made any bengal related insulting comments. I am not aware of any such comments from CP

Please read my response to CP above --it will explain what I said better.  And it will also explain why current context, even though innocuous, could be perceived by some as offensive if there is a past history or pattern that the current reference builds on.

For the record, I have not accused CP of being intentionally malicious.

On a side note, do you work for a company specializing in IPR & patents ? ("Rasgullah is not patented to bengal" -- LOL, its a Bengali dish, EOS)

Quote
I don't get your point. plz elaborate. don't you think it is regional bias from a bengali if I accuse SG of being selfish or past his sell by date, a guy jumps in to say something like , "ofcourse you don't like him afterall he is from bengal"

Sure, if that was the extent of the conversation, then it is regional bias -absollutely.

But do not think that was the issue on this DG. Again context is important -- started with SG and 2 groups =pro and anti. At some point, some members of the anti group resorted to diminishing every argument the pro SG group made my directly or indirectly assigning a parochial motive to the pro SG guy -- oh you are a bengali, from bengal, from the East Zone etc etc, a thought pattern nudged along by PP and his crusade against "so called parochialism" by highlighting articles and presenting his own twist on them.

In brief, the logic was "your argument in favor of SG does not hold ground because you are parochial and you would support SG come what may. What a shame, after 50 years of independence, we are still regionalistic and parochial".

The fallacy of the logic of course was cleverly hidden --that parochialism was purely circumstantial (that a Bengali guy /EZ guy was making the argument). No proof otherwise. But it was stated as the central tenet (hidden and unchallenged) and then the argument built around it. Since it is already established you are parochial, your arguments / support for Sg is based on parochialism and therefore they hold no merit and also you should be ashamed of your regional attitude. Its a cleverer version of the "discredit the source type of debating" and was rampant on the DG, led as it was by the father figure.

To give you an analog of how it sounds, its like saying "X supports VVS because X is from AP" or "Y supports RD because Y is Marathi or Y is from Karnataka" -- " Sheesh, how parochial of him"

When a guy on this DG made the kind of comments that you refer to, it inevitably was after months of getting beaten down by this kind of inane and demeaning arguments.

Hope that explains what i was getting at

Quote
nothing much to say except you somehow chose to take my words out of context. "colonial hangover or racist " is my comments, you chose to equate colonial hangover with racism and went on to build your logic. There were racist , skin color based attacks on GC and there were elaborate colonial hangover based reasonings built to put down GC, I condemn  both. Plz read my comments again if you stick with your above statements, I will respond with a more elaborate explaination.

Actually, I was not aware of this  - "There were racist , skin color based attacks on GC". if so they are condemnable. Other than this (I am going by your word here) I have not found any racist references to GC or More.

As far as colonial hangover is concerned, flute, you are not getting it. GC was never put down with those comments --if you can show me an instance, I shall agree with you. The argument as presented (in a news apper article, I believe) was that colonial hangover on the part of a section of the Indian populace allowed GC to get away with a lot. How that is putting down GC is completely beyond me --its a commentary on the effect of this syndrome on the thinking process of some sections of Indian society. In this context, I am not sure what you condemn or wish to condemn.


and finally:

Quote
you surprise me, where is your sense of context? this DG world, we do not know each other personally, on top of it, any joke to any stranger is always fraught with offense. oh and yes, I do make such jokes with my social group which includes all nationalities. An american recently told me how Indians must so horny because we reproduce so much, I made fun of rything ranging from obseseness , to culinary habits to unwashed american asses...dude you really surprise me.

Actually me sense of context is perfect here --as you said making jokes with people you do not know is fraught with danger. And as you admitted in the same sentence, in this DG we do not know each other personally -- seems like you are echoing what I said which is making culturally sensitive jokes are fraught with danger. And I shall add to that by saying that when you joke about an individual (whether you know him / her or not) not on the basis of his / her traits but on the basis of characteristics he shares (perceived or real) with his group of affiliation (race, country of origin, sex --whatever), then you are making a stereotypical reference.

And your example of what you banter about wih your buddies --isn't really the same now is it ? They are buddies / friends for one. For two, the jokes that you tolerate of each other is a reflection of your mutual understanding and trust in each other as fair human beings. Stripped of this trust, bond, buddy context, your jokes (depending on what kind of jokes obviously) is likely to be found offensive.

On the rare ocaasions that they do not evoke a reaction, it is probably due to the recipient's restraint rather than the inherent acceptability of the joke.


Logged

bouncer

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,033

It was the most vulgar and obscene display of communalism / racism that could be imagined on a discussion forum and the surprising thing was the overwhelming lack of condemnation from the majority of the other members in response to that.
Pretty far fetched allegations. About the lack of condemnation: so what? I didnt understand your point, kban. Does a passive audience mean that any of us actually agreed with all those hooligans? Does each one of us actually protest every injustice being committed in the world?

selectively passive, eh? A comment on Mallus broke that passivity, I see.....
« Last Edit: June 17, 2006, 12:57:24 AM by bouncer »
Logged

MockTurtle

  • Guest

this thread reminds of this poem attributed to Neimoller....


When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Logged

fineleg

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,358
  • she is the IPL Winnah!

Good one, Mock.
Reminds me of this one (that thread was a good example of a decent but very passionate discussion):
http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=2713.msg37535#msg37535
Logged

fineleg

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,358
  • she is the IPL Winnah!

Well I see a trend of the same old stuff happening again but what I want to say is that I am not trying to defend this or that behavior here..

While on one hand the people on one side wants it to be condemned that people on one side didnt give enough attention to the racist treatment inflicted on one side of the crowd.

Ohh arent these the same guys who started connecting the dots on this thread.. Isnt it a shame that "connecting the dots" doesnt mean the same thing as "Rasagullas.. "..

Ohh yes, this is what I feel.. they were commies.. who came out as commies just to support a guy because he is the "Lion of the land" and wont gave squats to that "Ducks are one too many and far too frequent.." or "Indian team was losing" and "We gotta change a few things.." here

On the other hand.. yes it is true.. It was based on regionalism.. and who were these guys.. same guys like Azhar who said,"I am a victim because I am a muslim".. same card.. Hey dud, you were captain of the same team for many long years approx.. and wah.. You were the same  "Lion of the Land" then and the land that is hated by the majority crowd just because its the land of "Rasgullas..".. common! Learn to believe that no sportsman is unmatched and they have a shelf life and they got to be discarded..

However I ask the accusers why are you so apologetic afterall? We all love our land and we should.. "Isnt Mumbai as bad.." means "Hey You know we are commies" but "arent you as bad?"

 

TYC,
Everyone knows there is a group that thinks SG can never get close to the old SG, and there is a group that think SG may get close to the old form if given more chances.

Are u saying that the latter group thinks that way, because of regionalism?

Not sure if it can be generalized. I think it is a question of most of us have watched cricket passionately, and after watching that, do we feel can SG perform or not as of today? There is a difference of opinion on this, but not sure it can be generalized that regionalism has to do with it.
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest

flute:

Quote
Please read my comments again, I was referring to CP's jokes only and in the context of a few PMs I exchanged with him, he has no malice about bengal...if some other DG member in some other era made some bengal comments using rasgulah, sorry , it is not relevant to my comment. Rasgullah is not patented to bengal. Irrespective of what someone else said somewhere else, we have to consider the joke in current context. Of course your point is valid if CP himself made any bengal related insulting comments. I am not aware of any such comments from CP

Please read my response to CP above --it will explain what I said better.  And it will also explain why current context, even though innocuous, could be perceived by some as offensive if there is a past history or pattern that the current reference builds on.

For the record, I have not accused CP of being intentionally malicious.

On a side note, do you work for a company specializing in IPR & patents ? ("Rasgullah is not patented to bengal" -- LOL, its a Bengali dish, EOS)

I will let CP respond to this..my original point was, simply saying making a rasgullah joke is not an attack on bengal or an insult to bengal

Quote
Quote
I don't get your point. plz elaborate. don't you think it is regional bias from a bengali if I accuse SG of being selfish or past his sell by date, a guy jumps in to say something like , "ofcourse you don't like him afterall he is from bengal"

Sure, if that was the extent of the conversation, then it is regional bias -absollutely.


But do not think that was the issue on this DG. Again context is important -- started with SG and 2 groups =pro and anti. At some point, some members of the anti group resorted to diminishing every argument the pro SG group made my directly or indirectly assigning a parochial motive to the pro SG guy -- oh you are a bengali, from bengal, from the East Zone etc etc, a thought pattern nudged along by PP and his crusade against "so called parochialism" by highlighting articles and presenting his own twist on them.

In brief, the logic was "your argument in favor of SG does not hold ground because you are parochial and you would support SG come what may. What a shame, after 50 years of independence, we are still regionalistic and parochial".

The fallacy of the logic of course was cleverly hidden --that parochialism was purely circumstantial (that a Bengali guy /EZ guy was making the argument). No proof otherwise. But it was stated as the central tenet (hidden and unchallenged) and then the argument built around it. Since it is already established you are parochial, your arguments / support for Sg is based on parochialism and therefore they hold no merit and also you should be ashamed of your regional attitude. Its a cleverer version of the "discredit the source type of debating" and was rampant on the DG, led as it was by the father figure.

To give you an analog of how it sounds, its like saying "X supports VVS because X is from AP" or "Y supports RD because Y is Marathi or Y is from Karnataka" -- " Sheesh, how parochial of him"

When a guy on this DG made the kind of comments that you refer to, it inevitably was after months of getting beaten down by this kind of inane and demeaning arguments.

Hope that explains what i was getting at

kban1,  effectively what you are saying is, because there were accusations of regional bias earlier, this type of regional bias from bengalis is acceptable?isn't region based bias basically extrapolating past experiences? in fact I saw enough instances of regional bias towards SG on this DG, does it make it right on my part to accuse every bengali of bias if he supports SG? there is no end to this type of logic, surprised that you are employing thats all.

As far as I saw on this DG, I don't think there is any disproportionate victimization of bengalis on this DG. I do not remember much from comments section, but I was visiting purdue DG pretty regularly and I do remember ugly scenes from both sides.

I will respond to your other points later..gotta go take my dinner, wifey giving angry looks..
Logged

Blwe_torch

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19,148
  • Last man standing

Hey...while we are talking on the Mallus and the Bongs....we can also chk out a few exchanges in the "Ganguly's mother visits Tantrik" thread. Quite interesting I thought. I was one of the poster there. The point was ...similarities between the Mallus and the Bongs.

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=3441.msg44393#msg44393
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

Quote
kban1,  effectively what you are saying is, because there were accusations of regional bias earlier, this type of regional bias from bengalis is acceptable?isn't region based bias basically extrapolating past experiences? in fact I saw enough instances of regional bias towards SG on this DG, does it make it right on my part to accuse every bengali of bias if he supports SG? there is no end to this type of logic, surprised that you are employing thats all.

No, you misunderstood my point. I said if some group (forget Bengalis - make it Christian, Jew, malayali, Tamil, Punjabi--whatever) is accused of group based bias in order to undermine the basis of their argument, then it is but a matter of time before one or more members of that group will respond by accusing the original accussee of bias.

Your example was as follows:
Quote
don't you think it is regional bias from a bengali if I accuse SG of being selfish or past his sell by date, a guy jumps in to say something like , "ofcourse you don't like him afterall he is from bengal"

In this case, the guy after facing the bias is now responding by saying of course you will say this because you are biased.

Now if you (specifically you) were guilty of this and the person responds to you that way, he is merely pointing out a fault of yours.

But (and this is the more likely case) lets say some made the original accusations  and the accused is responding to you by accusing you of being a part of the biased crowd simply because your viewpoints on the issue match those of the original accusers, then yes this person is guilty of bias in his / her responses as well.

A good example of this is the history of blacks and whites in the USA (please make note -this is a analogy to illustrate a point, not a comprehensive comparison). In the past, a large section of the white population discriminated against the black population. Which over time resulted in the black perception that whites don't like them. Now, there were a miniscule % of whites who were not that way but got grouped together anyways with the others vis-a-vis the black perception of whites.

So, stereotypes cut both ways but some stereotypes / biases are used to castigate (like the way whites did) while other stereotypes / biases are used in response as a defense mechanism (like the blacks did). This is an important part to distinguish.

Quote
As far as I saw on this DG, I don't think there is any disproportionate victimization of bengalis on this DG. I do not remember much from comments section, but I was visiting purdue DG pretty regularly and I do remember ugly scenes from both sides.

Look, I think what happened, happened in the past. It was definitely not my intention to rake up the past but looks like I have done it (unintentionally though) in trying to correct what I thought was a well intentioned but simplistic post by fineleg (and as he pointed out, his post was in context of an ongoing discussion, which I had originally missed).

Having said that, it is but natural for you to have a different perspective regarding adverse comments made (explicit) or adverse implications being made (implicit) about another community  -- not because you don't care but because you are not feeling the pinch of such comments made because of your different group identity (in the given context). Also because a series of comments or veiled references will not form a pattern in your mind since you are not the target of those --you are likely to see those as isolated instances whereas the other group will see those comments / references as pattern forming.

And yes there were ugly scenes on the Purdue DG but it was preceded with some horribly nasty comments targetted towards a particular community on Sightscreen (I believe I gave you a sample of a couple of such comments in another thread very recently). And the comments on Purdue were  at times an extension of the earlier comments, although not as explicitly stated. Amidst all the ugliness from the pro SG side, I do not recall any that sunk to the communal depths of the Sightscreen comments made by a few from the anti SG side.
Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool

Funny you should bring up the Eden Garden crowd. Why was that particular crowd behavior bad as opposed to say the Bangalore crowd or the Mumbai crowd ? I did not hear any condemnations then -- see its all SG centric.

When SRT is booed, muted reaction / outrage. When SG is booed, no outrage but if GC and RD are booed because SG is not in the team, the demand for condemnation from rooftops is defeaning.

But taking a contrarian position -- what obligates a crowd to only shower praise on the players or the team ? What prevents them from criticizing players not playing well or doing what they didn't approve. Isn't that the nature of sports ? Isn't that the argument used on this DG --we are objective, we supported SG when he was good, now he is not, so he does not belong. So whats sauce for the goose (DG fans) is not sauce for the *er (fans in the stands in Eden, Bangalore, or Mumabi) ?

Have nothing to say on everything on this thread ... but just thought I'd point out ...
-SRT was booed because of a poor performance
-SG was booed because of poor performance'
-Ravi Shastri used to get booed because of his slow play

GC and RD were booed and heckled by a part of the crowd because SG was dropped. One can split hair and argue that they were also booed because of cricketing reasons, but taking all the events that preceded it in context, I'm not buying that argument.

Just pointing out the difference.
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

kic:

Quote
GC and RD were booed and heckled by a part of the crowd because SG was dropped. One can split hair and argue that they were also booed because of cricketing reasons, but taking all the events that preceded it in context, I'm not buying that argument.

Just pointing out the difference.

I see your point but .....

That's a distinction that can be parsed in different ways by us, yet there would probably be arguments by sections of the Eden crowd that it was very much a cricketing issue because it was a selection issue in which captain and coach had a say. Whatever the truth of that, thats the crowd's perception and so to them it remains within the realm of cricket.

Now if RD or GC or whoever were booed for lets say not paying homage in the Kalibari in Calcutta, then you could definitively say it was a non cricketing issue.

Perceptions differ based on how broadly or narrowly one defines the field.
Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool

kic:

Quote
GC and RD were booed and heckled by a part of the crowd because SG was dropped. One can split hair and argue that they were also booed because of cricketing reasons, but taking all the events that preceded it in context, I'm not buying that argument.

Just pointing out the difference.

I see your point but .....

That's a distinction that can be parsed in different ways by us, yet there would probably be arguments by sections of the Eden crowd that it was very much a cricketing issue because it was a selection issue in which captain and coach had a say. Whatever the truth of that, thats the crowd's perception and so to them it remains within the realm of cricket.

Now if RD or GC or whoever were booed for lets say not paying homage in the Kalibari in Calcutta, then you could definitively say it was a non cricketing issue.

Perceptions differ based on how broadly or narrowly one defines the field.

stretching a bit .. but fine, lets then just say that the definition in this case was very very broad!
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

flute202020

  • Guest

Your example was as follows:
Quote
don't you think it is regional bias from a bengali if I accuse SG of being selfish or past his sell by date, a guy jumps in to say something like , "ofcourse you don't like him afterall he is from bengal"

In this case, the guy after facing the bias is now responding by saying of course you will say this because you are biased.
You are assuming that the guy faced bias earlier. I saw enough indications of "victim" mentality to discount that in some instances. Anyway, I think we agree on the basic premise that bringing "bengal" into equation without previous instances of bias from the same person is also regional bias. thats good. I raised that issue because I did face that problem on this DG and in one instance from a Mod.

Quote
Having said that, it is but natural for you to have a different perspective regarding adverse comments made (explicit) or adverse implications being made (implicit) about another community  -- not because you don't care but because you are not feeling the pinch of such comments made because of your different group identity (in the given context). Also because a series of comments or veiled references will not form a pattern in your mind since you are not the target of those --you are likely to see those as isolated instances whereas the other group will see those comments / references as pattern forming.

In the same vien, don't you think, a person who is in fact not a target and who is not a participant in any nasty ,ugly discussions along regional bias can be more objective? An emotional victim may loose balance and a sense of "victim" mentality seep in and a rank outsider might be able to offer a more objective perspective, don't you think that is also a possibility? I think it cuts both way.

Quote
And yes there were ugly scenes on the Purdue DG but it was preceded with some horribly nasty comments targetted towards a particular community on Sightscreen (I believe I gave you a sample of a couple of such comments in another thread very recently). And the comments on Purdue were  at times an extension of the earlier comments, although not as explicitly stated. Amidst all the ugliness from the pro SG side, I do not recall any that sunk to the communal depths of the Sightscreen comments made by a few from the anti SG side.
As I mentioned earlier, once it went downhill in comments section of PP's blog, I completely ignored it and never participated or read those comments, but I will take your word on it. But, how many of those who resorted to ugly comments in fact moved over to DG and continued those type of attacks? as far as I remember, I did not discern any imbalance in viciousness of attacks on both sides of the "great divide".

In fact, on another note, here is my take in general, not only about DG. Personally, I never have had a chance to travel to WB , so all my impressions are purely based on articles, columns,books etc. Before any of this SG issue came up(not saying it is any different now), WB was one my fav. places in India simple because some of my loved Indians like Vivekananda, Rama Krishna, Tagore, Bose, Ram Mohan Roy( the list is long and varied)came from my and being a history buff, Bengal's contribution to Indian freedom struggle etc. made me love bengal as the cultural capital of India during best part of 19th century. Since I never visited Bengal, my impressions of Bengal were more romanticised based on gentle bengal manners, intellectual activity depicted in movies etc. Its my fault that I never gave much thought to it beyond that. SG issue really made me sit up and take notice of the reactions from WB. On the whole, I must say I am disappointed at 2 levels. One is the level of frenzy & regional bias exhibited towards a fav son of the soil and at another level, the reactions to criticism of these negative tendencies. without access to vernacular press, may be I am mistaken, may be there is enough intellectual debate and criticism of these things to act as checks & balance against such reactions in future. May be someone from bengal, enlighten me on this.

Level 1
Frenzied reactions like effigy burning, rasta rokos, politician's interference,cross section of soceity's reaction,booing Indian team and supporting opposition team etc. While I firmly believe that these should not be extrapolated to damn the entire state or all bengalis, the trend is prevalent enough to be concerned at the precedent it will set.

Level 2
Defensive, rationalization of these tendecies using illogical explainations like how bengalis fought against injustice and how colonial past is brought into the argument to reason for SG's non selection etc. While we can debate about these rationalizations all day, to me the important thing of concern is that even unbiased people somehow feel the need to defend, reason the frenzied reactions against criticism. As I said earlier, WHY defend? such tendencies bother me no matter where it happen, be it nagpur treachery or Eden garden ambush, they happen in India and it concerns me. Bengal or Bengalis need not own the responsibility or be defensive about it. A simple condemnation of these frenzied,largely frinze elements simply isolates them and the matter will quickly die down.


Of course, I am aware that my POV essentially assumes that SG's non-selection was justified and long overdue at the time these things happened be it booing of Indian team or effigy burning or rasta rokos.
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest

As far as colonial hangover is concerned, flute, you are not getting it. GC was never put down with those comments --if you can show me an instance, I shall agree with you. The argument as presented (in a news apper article, I believe) was that colonial hangover on the part of a section of the Indian populace allowed GC to get away with a lot. How that is putting down GC is completely beyond me --its a commentary on the effect of this syndrome on the thinking process of some sections of Indian society. In this context, I am not sure what you condemn or wish to condemn.
kban1, I do not have the inclination to dig up and present evidence but following  is what I found condemnable(don't take it verbatim because I am going by memory here)

1.In quite a few posts, white GC is pitted against desi prince SG. GC is supposedly offended that a brown guy from India is speaking up to him and that Gc expects all Indians to be meek and since SG is not fitting into the mold, SG is being victimised.
2.More & everyone in BCCI who supports sacking SG were in fact pointedly accused of colonial hangover. The idea being , looking at GC and his white skin, Indians in BCCI are not able to muster the courage or back spine to dispute his ideas or actions.
3.Debating any colonial hangover issues in general is one thing(I don't think anything like that exists), but in fact accusing specific people of having this hangover simply because they don't support your view is totally different and is condemnable. To me, I don't see any reason to bring this issue into any Indian cricket related debate.

Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

flute:

Quote
Quote from kban
Having said that, it is but natural for you to have a different perspective regarding adverse comments made (explicit) or adverse implications being made (implicit) about another community  -- not because you don't care but because you are not feeling the pinch of such comments made because of your different group identity (in the given context). Also because a series of comments or veiled references will not form a pattern in your mind since you are not the target of those --you are likely to see those as isolated instances whereas the other group will see those comments / references as pattern forming.

Quote
quote from flute
In the same vien, don't you think, a person who is in fact not a target and who is not a participant in any nasty ,ugly discussions along regional bias can be more objective? An emotional victim may loose balance and a sense of "victim" mentality seep in and a rank outsider might be able to offer a more objective perspective, don't you think that is also a possibility? I think it cuts both way.


Actually, I disagree with you. A victim of such abuse does not necessarily become mentally disbalanced (even temporarily) although he / she may be seething from anger.

Also, a 3rd party is likely to be non aware of cultural, ethnic, communal or racial contexts which contribute to the perception of the offended which means the 3rd party's perception is likely to differ from that of the offended.

The third party may be called upon to judge but in such cases, judgment is almost always almost delvered after due consideration of all sides including cultural, ethnic concepts / contexts, and connotations of comments. So your opinion of 3rd parties is valid when they are appointed judge and do the necessary investigation before making  ajudgment, not when they sit in judgment based on cursory examination of what is said by the offender and what is expressed by the offended vis-a-vis level of anguish.

Quote
On the whole, I must say I am disappointed at 2 levels. One is the level of frenzy & regional bias exhibited towards a fav son of the soil and at another level, the reactions to criticism of these negative tendencies. without access to vernacular press, may be I am mistaken, may be there is enough intellectual debate and criticism of these things to act as checks & balance against such reactions in future. May be someone from bengal, enlighten me on this.

Level 1
Frenzied reactions like effigy burning, rasta rokos, politician's interference,cross section of soceity's reaction,booing Indian team and supporting opposition team etc. While I firmly believe that these should not be extrapolated to damn the entire state or all bengalis, the trend is prevalent enough to be concerned at the precedent it will set.

Level 2
Defensive, rationalization of these tendecies using illogical explainations like how bengalis fought against injustice and how colonial past is brought into the argument to reason for SG's non selection etc. While we can debate about these rationalizations all day, to me the important thing of concern is that even unbiased people somehow feel the need to defend, reason the frenzied reactions against criticism. As I said earlier, WHY defend? such tendencies bother me no matter where it happen, be it nagpur treachery or Eden garden ambush, they happen in India and it concerns me. Bengal or Bengalis need not own the responsibility or be defensive about it. A simple condemnation of these frenzied,largely frinze elements simply isolates them and the matter will quickly die down.

Of course, I am aware that my POV essentially assumes that SG's non-selection was justified and long overdue at the time these things happened be it booing of Indian team or effigy burning or rasta rokos.

 
I think you just answered your own question:

"Of course, I am aware that my POV essentially assumes that SG's non-selection was justified and long overdue at the time these things happened be it booing of Indian team or effigy burning or rasta rokos"

The thing is not everyone agrees with you on that. Many feel that the non selection was vendetta based and to them their protest is a righteous call against shady dealings.

See if you view it from their perspective, it no longer smacks of regional bias towards their favorite son of the soil. And actually, Eden and the Calcutta crowd have more than a few legs to stand on if they counter the regional bias claim simpley because they have protested before --loudly, clearly and sections have even stayed away from test matches when they felt Mushtaq Ali and Kapil were unfairly dropped. of course none of these Indian players had the remotest association with Bengal.

As far as the effigy burnings, rasta rokos, and politicians speaking out I have nothing much to say other than be amused how we are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

This is India --you and I both grew up there. Rasta roko, burning effigies, dharnas are resorted to every month to push a point across (whether with basis or without basis). Its also done by groups who are fuelled by politicians or by groups who have nothing better to do. And politicians -less said the better, they get involved in anything that will bring them publicity --whether it is SG being dropped, increasing reservations for OBC's or promising rise to residents of AP for Rs 2 per kilogram.

Why read so much into events that happen all over India, fueled by the emotion of the moment, encouraged by vote seeking politicians, and executed by unemployed (not their fault entirely), frustrated people who need something to lash out at.

About the crowd behavior, I have already explained where I stand as well as provided you with the contrarian view.

As far as the rationalizations --some of them are as vacuous as the allegations, right ?
You accuse someone of being communalist or patriarchial, he / she will espond by pulling out his list of past achievements in being unbiased, no ?

See from your perspective, SG was rightly dropped, so their protests are parochial. From their perspective, SG was wrongly dropped, so their protests are righteous, and to top it off, how dare you question their unbiasedness when their past history shows otherwise -- see where I am getting at ?

The colonial past being brought in the debate has something to do with reality. Again I have made this point before --you tend to judge others  (on this issue) using your yardstick. Since you do not feel anything of that sort, or you have not witnessed it in your immediate circle, you say it does not exist.

Ask yourself a few questions:

1) You and your circle of friends / acquaintances --what % of India's population do you make up ?
2) DO you think the rest of India's population all come from similar backgrounds --  wealth, upbringing, and similar educatuon -- as you ?
3) DO you think they have been exposed to the world as much as you have ?

If not, then what makes you assume that your experiences should be treated as a microcosm of the whole of India ?

Many in India suffer from this mentality and many who do not are actually in a position to observe that. Your non witnessing or non realization of the phenomenon does not make it false per se.

I know you dont agree with me but let me proceed on with the point I am trying to make.

To a lot of these people who have witnessed CH and believe it exists, it offers an explanation of why GC might be able to get away with a lot of the changes he does without opposition from anyone (mind you this is based on their perception).

Now, this might be too simplistic an explanation, it might be too naive, it might be completely true or it might be partially true (contributory along with other factors) -- whetever it is, it provides people angusihed at the injustice (as per them) meted out to SG with an explanation, a rationalization, a reason.

That is their thinking and you cannot change it just as they cannot change yours.

Why get worked up about it and term it as rationalization, defensive, frenzied reaction, parochial bias etc when all your allegations have an equally compelling counter argument ?

Based on where they stand, they are correct. And based on where you stand, you are correct. Thats the thing with perceptions -- they define everything else and you sometimes cannot change them.

As I said in the beginning of this section --you have just answered your own question.

I would look at the brighter side --there are considerable number (in number, not necessarily %age) of Bengalis or Bengal residents who agree with you that SG was justifiedly dropped  ;)

 
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest

flute:

Quote
Quote from kban
Having said that, it is but natural for you to have a different perspective regarding adverse comments made (explicit) or adverse implications being made (implicit) about another community  -- not because you don't care but because you are not feeling the pinch of such comments made because of your different group identity (in the given context). Also because a series of comments or veiled references will not form a pattern in your mind since you are not the target of those --you are likely to see those as isolated instances whereas the other group will see those comments / references as pattern forming.

Quote
quote from flute
In the same vien, don't you think, a person who is in fact not a target and who is not a participant in any nasty ,ugly discussions along regional bias can be more objective? An emotional victim may loose balance and a sense of "victim" mentality seep in and a rank outsider might be able to offer a more objective perspective, don't you think that is also a possibility? I think it cuts both way.


Actually, I disagree with you. A victim of such abuse does not necessarily become mentally disbalanced (even temporarily) although he / she may be seething from anger.

Also, a 3rd party is likely to be non aware of cultural, ethnic, communal or racial contexts which contribute to the perception of the offended which means the 3rd party's perception is likely to differ from that of the offended.

The third party may be called upon to judge but in such cases, judgment is almost always almost delvered after due consideration of all sides including cultural, ethnic concepts / contexts, and connotations of comments. So your opinion of 3rd parties is valid when they are appointed judge and do the necessary investigation before making  ajudgment, not when they sit in judgment based on cursory examination of what is said by the offender and what is expressed by the offended vis-a-vis level of anguish.

Quote
On the whole, I must say I am disappointed at 2 levels. One is the level of frenzy & regional bias exhibited towards a fav son of the soil and at another level, the reactions to criticism of these negative tendencies. without access to vernacular press, may be I am mistaken, may be there is enough intellectual debate and criticism of these things to act as checks & balance against such reactions in future. May be someone from bengal, enlighten me on this.

Level 1
Frenzied reactions like effigy burning, rasta rokos, politician's interference,cross section of soceity's reaction,booing Indian team and supporting opposition team etc. While I firmly believe that these should not be extrapolated to damn the entire state or all bengalis, the trend is prevalent enough to be concerned at the precedent it will set.

Level 2
Defensive, rationalization of these tendecies using illogical explainations like how bengalis fought against injustice and how colonial past is brought into the argument to reason for SG's non selection etc. While we can debate about these rationalizations all day, to me the important thing of concern is that even unbiased people somehow feel the need to defend, reason the frenzied reactions against criticism. As I said earlier, WHY defend? such tendencies bother me no matter where it happen, be it nagpur treachery or Eden garden ambush, they happen in India and it concerns me. Bengal or Bengalis need not own the responsibility or be defensive about it. A simple condemnation of these frenzied,largely frinze elements simply isolates them and the matter will quickly die down.

Of course, I am aware that my POV essentially assumes that SG's non-selection was justified and long overdue at the time these things happened be it booing of Indian team or effigy burning or rasta rokos.

 
I think you just answered your own question:

"Of course, I am aware that my POV essentially assumes that SG's non-selection was justified and long overdue at the time these things happened be it booing of Indian team or effigy burning or rasta rokos"

The thing is not everyone agrees with you on that. Many feel that the non selection was vendetta based and to them their protest is a righteous call against shady dealings.

See if you view it from their perspective, it no longer smacks of regional bias towards their favorite son of the soil. And actually, Eden and the Calcutta crowd have more than a few legs to stand on if they counter the regional bias claim simpley because they have protested before --loudly, clearly and sections have even stayed away from test matches when they felt Mushtaq Ali and Kapil were unfairly dropped. of course none of these Indian players had the remotest association with Bengal.

As far as the effigy burnings, rasta rokos, and politicians speaking out I have nothing much to say other than be amused how we are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

This is India --you and I both grew up there. Rasta roko, burning effigies, dharnas are resorted to every month to push a point across (whether with basis or without basis). Its also done by groups who are fuelled by politicians or by groups who have nothing better to do. And politicians -less said the better, they get involved in anything that will bring them publicity --whether it is SG being dropped, increasing reservations for OBC's or promising rise to residents of AP for Rs 2 per kilogram.

Why read so much into events that happen all over India, fueled by the emotion of the moment, encouraged by vote seeking politicians, and executed by unemployed (not their fault entirely), frustrated people who need something to lash out at.

About the crowd behavior, I have already explained where I stand as well as provided you with the contrarian view.

As far as the rationalizations --some of them are as vacuous as the allegations, right ?
You accuse someone of being communalist or patriarchial, he / she will espond by pulling out his list of past achievements in being unbiased, no ?

See from your perspective, SG was rightly dropped, so their protests are parochial. From their perspective, SG was wrongly dropped, so their protests are righteous, and to top it off, how dare you question their unbiasedness when their past history shows otherwise -- see where I am getting at ?

The colonial past being brought in the debate has something to do with reality. Again I have made this point before --you tend to judge others  (on this issue) using your yardstick. Since you do not feel anything of that sort, or you have not witnessed it in your immediate circle, you say it does not exist.

Ask yourself a few questions:

1) You and your circle of friends / acquaintances --what % of India's population do you make up ?
2) DO you think the rest of India's population all come from similar backgrounds --  wealth, upbringing, and similar educatuon -- as you ?
3) DO you think they have been exposed to the world as much as you have ?

If not, then what makes you assume that your experiences should be treated as a microcosm of the whole of India ?

Many in India suffer from this mentality and many who do not are actually in a position to observe that. Your non witnessing or non realization of the phenomenon does not make it false per se.

I know you dont agree with me but let me proceed on with the point I am trying to make.

To a lot of these people who have witnessed CH and believe it exists, it offers an explanation of why GC might be able to get away with a lot of the changes he does without opposition from anyone (mind you this is based on their perception).

Now, this might be too simplistic an explanation, it might be too naive, it might be completely true or it might be partially true (contributory along with other factors) -- whetever it is, it provides people angusihed at the injustice (as per them) meted out to SG with an explanation, a rationalization, a reason.

That is their thinking and you cannot change it just as they cannot change yours.

Why get worked up about it and term it as rationalization, defensive, frenzied reaction, parochial bias etc when all your allegations have an equally compelling counter argument ?

Based on where they stand, they are correct. And based on where you stand, you are correct. Thats the thing with perceptions -- they define everything else and you sometimes cannot change them.

As I said in the beginning of this section --you have just answered your own question.

I would look at the brighter side --there are considerable number (in number, not necessarily %age) of Bengalis or Bengal residents who agree with you that SG was justifiedly dropped  ;)

 

kban1, one question for you, at the time these rasta rokos & booing of Indian team happened, did you think SG was unfairly dropped? do you think there was no cricketing merit/case which can be made for dropping SG at that time?
we can always go in cicles on what the crowd feels, their POV etc., the essential point is your POV since we are debating with each other. If I think the Eden crowd was biased, of course they will have their POV too and I hold my POV. I think, to debate on the merits of my opinion, you will have to point to the logic of my opinion and not about how the crowd feels, right because my main point is that they are emotional and their protest is borne out of predominantly regional considerations? After all, an emotional crowd essentially will feel injustice even if SG failed continuously for 3 yrs.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

flute:

We were discussing crowd motivations or motivations, rationalizations, and alleged defensiveness / bias of some SG fans. My earlier post/s were in response to that And I was just pointing out others could have a diff POV and feel quite justified by it.

It had nothing to do with my POV on the issue but here is where I stand:

short answer to your question is yes, I feel he did not deserve to be dropped.

If the dropping had happened 6 months ago, I would not have felt that way. But he had scored a 100 (yes it was slow and against minnows, but it was still a test hundred) and upon being asked to prove form and fitness for ODI selection, he has passed his fitness test and scored (what was from all accounts) an impressive 100+ on a green top wicket at a very good strike rate.

That does not mean I would have seconded the protests, the rasta rokos, or what sections of the Eden crowd did though.
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest

Quote

I think you just answered your own question:

"Of course, I am aware that my POV essentially assumes that SG's non-selection was justified and long overdue at the time these things happened be it booing of Indian team or effigy burning or rasta rokos"

The thing is not everyone agrees with you on that. Many feel that the non selection was vendetta based and to them their protest is a righteous call against shady dealings.

See if you view it from their perspective, it no longer smacks of regional bias towards their favorite son of the soil. And actually, Eden and the Calcutta crowd have more than a few legs to stand on if they counter the regional bias claim simpley because they have protested before --loudly, clearly and sections have even stayed away from test matches when they felt Mushtaq Ali and Kapil were unfairly dropped. of course none of these Indian players had the remotest association with Bengal.
kban1, I don't think this is a valid argument. This of logic can be applied to pretty much everything in any situation, say *hi's assisination, 9/11, Rajiv *hi assasination or Jesus crucification. Each party will have its justification and its reasons, no matter who henious the action. When 2 people are debating, you need to present your view point on the correctness of a action or event, not other people's justification for it and then follow up to say "see there is can be the counter argument".



Quote
As far as the effigy burnings, rasta rokos, and politicians speaking out I have nothing much to say other than be amused how we are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

This is India --you and I both grew up there. Rasta roko, burning effigies, dharnas are resorted to every month to push a point across (whether with basis or without basis). Its also done by groups who are fuelled by politicians or by groups who have nothing better to do. And politicians -less said the better, they get involved in anything that will bring them publicity --whether it is SG being dropped, increasing reservations for OBC's or promising rise to residents of AP for Rs 2 per kilogram.

Why read so much into events that happen all over India, fueled by the emotion of the moment, encouraged by vote seeking politicians, and executed by unemployed (not their fault entirely), frustrated people who need something to lash out at.
firstly, I don't remember rasta rokos,effigy burnings or political interference in a cricket related matter before. In that respect, this has a wrong precedent setting potential. Tomorrow when VVS or SRT gets dropped, Mumbai or Hyd might conduct mass protests and politicians will jump in to cash in.

Secondly, simply because it happened in India a lot, it doesn't make it RIGHT. This type of explaination really riles me a lot and a lot of Indians seem to do it to the lowering of standards. Someone said, everyone does it when I said Pramod Mahajan looted a lot of money thru corrupt practices. Also, the very fact that politicians based in WB jumped in shows that there is enough public opinion to be cash in. I don't think public protests & rail rokos & rasta rokos regarding a cricket selection, that too a specific cricketer's selection from a particular region are to brushed aside as "happens all the time".


Quote
About the crowd behavior, I have already explained where I stand as well as provided you with the contrarian view.

As far as the rationalizations --some of them are as vacuous as the allegations, right ?
You accuse someone of being communalist or patriarchial, he / she will espond by pulling out his list of past achievements in being unbiased, no ?

See from your perspective, SG was rightly dropped, so their protests are parochial. From their perspective, SG was wrongly dropped, so their protests are righteous, and to top it off, how dare you question their unbiasedness when their past history shows otherwise -- see where I am getting at ?

The colonial past being brought in the debate has something to do with reality. Again I have made this point before --you tend to judge others  (on this issue) using your yardstick. Since you do not feel anything of that sort, or you have not witnessed it in your immediate circle, you say it does not exist.

Ask yourself a few questions:

1) You and your circle of friends / acquaintances --what % of India's population do you make up ?
2) DO you think the rest of India's population all come from similar backgrounds --  wealth, upbringing, and similar educatuon -- as you ?
3) DO you think they have been exposed to the world as much as you have ?

If not, then what makes you assume that your experiences should be treated as a microcosm of the whole of India ?

Many in India suffer from this mentality and many who do not are actually in a position to observe that. Your non witnessing or non realization of the phenomenon does not make it false per se.

I know you dont agree with me but let me proceed on with the point I am trying to make.

To a lot of these people who have witnessed CH and believe it exists, it offers an explanation of why GC might be able to get away with a lot of the changes he does without opposition from anyone (mind you this is based on their perception).

Now, this might be too simplistic an explanation, it might be too naive, it might be completely true or it might be partially true (contributory along with other factors) -- whetever it is, it provides people angusihed at the injustice (as per them) meted out to SG with an explanation, a rationalization, a reason.

That is their thinking and you cannot change it just as they cannot change yours.

Why get worked up about it and term it as rationalization, defensive, frenzied reaction, parochial bias etc when all your allegations have an equally compelling counter argument ?

Based on where they stand, they are correct. And based on where you stand, you are correct. Thats the thing with perceptions -- they define everything else and you sometimes cannot change them.

As I said in the beginning of this section --you have just answered your own question.

I would look at the brighter side --there are considerable number (in number, not necessarily %age) of Bengalis or Bengal residents who agree with you that SG was justifiedly dropped  ;)
I told you repeatedly that it is not based on my select friend circle and I see you bring it up repeatedly to come out of my microcosm , can you please flip the coin? same can be said of your opinion, right? if you saw a few instances of such display(anyway a behaviour is open to interpretation and is only your guess that it is CH), what makes you so sure it is representative of India? I am fervently hoping that you will not bring up this "microcosm " argument in any future arguments regarding CH.  I did not wish to debate the rights or wrong of CH, so I will leave all your arguments for it, we already debated about it and I am waiting for your response on the latest debate.

Its not about validity of CH, but employing it to specific people because there is perceived injustice. This is similar to me meeting a guy from Bengal(believe me I did) who is a blind follower of SG and wants him in the team for another 10 yrs simply because he is the DADA and then I extrapolating it to everyone on this DG. will it be valid? isn't it regional bias? if it is , how can you support such "explaination" for their perceived injustice? By that token, can I accuse everyone from bengal on this DG of bias simply because I met one guy who is really biased? isn't it the same, to a lot of guys( who faced regional bias and parochial attitudes), regional bias  offers   an explanation of why SG might be able to get away with a lot of bad performances & why he is able to get so much support in Bengal(mind you this is based on their perception).

can you agree with the above statement? if yes, never complain about abuses on bengal or communal comments on this DG, for I am sure they too have their POV which is valid from their perspective.

flip the coint kban1. its not about their or someone else;s POV, its about your opinion of those protests,reactions  Vs my opinion.

« Last Edit: June 19, 2006, 08:20:59 PM by flute202020 »
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest

flute:

We were discussing crowd motivations or motivations, rationalizations, and alleged defensiveness / bias of some SG fans. My earlier post/s were in response to that And I was just pointing out others could have a diff POV and feel quite justified by it.

It had nothing to do with my POV on the issue but here is where I stand:

short answer to your question is yes, I feel he did not deserve to be dropped.

If the dropping had happened 6 months ago, I would not have felt that way. But he had scored a 100 (yes it was slow and against minnows, but it was still a test hundred) and upon being asked to prove form and fitness for ODI selection, he has passed his fitness test and scored (what was from all accounts) an impressive 100+ on a green top wicket at a very good strike rate.

That does not mean I would have seconded the protests, the rasta rokos, or what sections of the Eden crowd did though.
kban1, just a clarification, did SG make his 100+ on a green top before the eden ODI? did he make that domestic 100 before the selections were made for that Eden ODI?
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

Quote
kban1, just a clarification, did SG make his 100+ on a green top before the eden ODI? did he make that domestic 100 before the selections were made for that Eden ODI?

does this really matter ? The ODI's played against SA were within a month or threabouts of his 100+ on a greentop. He was out of the 1st 2 SL ODI's due to injury and since then was consistently shut out of ODI selection till Eden.

In fact on the day of the Eden ODI he scored 159 in another domestic match.

Unless your argument is that SG has to find or manufacture (if not already scheduled) a local match to prove his form just before the selection commitee meets for ODI selections (and there were several meetings for those 12 ODI's), I fail to see where you are going with this.
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest

Quote
kban1, just a clarification, did SG make his 100+ on a green top before the eden ODI? did he make that domestic 100 before the selections were made for that Eden ODI?

does this really matter ? The ODI's played against SA were within a month or threabouts of his 100+ on a greentop. He was out of the 1st 2 SL ODI's due to injury and since then was consistently shut out of ODI selection till Eden.

In fact on the day of the Eden ODI he scored 159 in another domestic match.

Unless your argument is that SG has to find or manufacture (if not already scheduled) a local match to prove his form just before the selection commitee meets for ODI selections (and there were several meetings for those 12 ODI's), I fail to see where you are going with this.

I was trying to recollect when he made that 100, because you mentioned that 100 as one of the reasons you think he should not have been dropped in ODIs.

BTW, do you also think SG should also have retained his captaincy since afterall he won a overseas series after so many years & also made a century signifying return to form?
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

flute:

No, If he was stripped of captaincy at that time, it was probably appropriate because he did need to concentrate on his batting. As good a leader he was, he needed to pay heed to his primary responsibility, something he could have done without the pressures of captaincy.

side note: In reality, he realized that too --he gave a few hints about resigning post Zim (vernacular press) --of course once GC sent the email, it became a different issue.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

flute:

Quote
kban1, I don't think this is a valid argument. This of logic can be applied to pretty much everything in any situation, say *hi's assisination, 9/11, Rajiv *hi assasination or Jesus crucification. Each party will have its justification and its reasons, no matter who henious the action. When 2 people are debating, you need to present your view point on the correctness of a action or event, not other people's justification for it and then follow up to say "see there is can be the counter argument".


I think you are comparing apples to oranges here when you compare an assassination to whatever some people in Bengal did, not least because an assassination has a definitive result which is bad –you are taking someone’s life.

In this case, it is your attribution of these people’s support to regionalism vs  the alternative (support for a legitimate cause). There is no definitive action or inferences, only your surmising that it may have arisen from regional preferences.

That argument can be made for a variety of issues without proof – to quote a hypothetical example:
South Indians like Dravid because he represents South Zone / Karnataka.
Maharashtrians like Dravid  because he is a  Marathi.

Now, no matter how loudly I state this, people will shout back harder at me saying I am wrong. In this hypothetical situation, I may or may not have a point but I shall always get the opposite viewpoint which states that I am way off base.

There is simply no way to say if one is right or wrong in such cases.

Quote
firstly, I don't remember rasta rokos,effigy burnings or political interference in a cricket related matter before. In that respect, this has a wrong precedent setting potential. Tomorrow when VVS or SRT gets dropped, Mumbai or Hyd might conduct mass protests and politicians will jump in to cash in.

Secondly, simply because it happened in India a lot, it doesn't make it RIGHT. This type of explaination really riles me a lot and a lot of Indians seem to do it to the lowering of standards. Someone said, everyone does it when I said Pramod Mahajan looted a lot of money thru corrupt practices. Also, the very fact that politicians based in WB jumped in shows that there is enough public opinion to be cash in. I don't think public protests & rail rokos & rasta rokos regarding a cricket selection, that too a specific cricketer's selection from a particular region are to brushed aside as "happens all the time".


Whether it has happened with cricket or not is irrelevant –it has happened for far frivolous issues. I find it hard to be the moral judge of what issues should be covered under one form of protest vs what issues should not be covered.

And I did not argue for lowering of standards, neither did I argue in favor of such actions. All I said is this is reality.

Would we like it to be different  such that normal life is not disrupted for such frivolous issues ?– YES!!
But is that reality ? – NO !!

Doing a reality check is not the same as approving / condoning or lowering standards. Besides, to me, it is inconsequential to shout about it sitting in the US knowing that nothing I say or write will change it in India –unless I am willing to go there and take up some concrete action.

Quote
I told you repeatedly that it is not based on my select friend circle and I see you bring it up repeatedly to come out of my microcosm , can you please flip the coin? same can be said of your opinion, right? if you saw a few instances of such display(anyway a behaviour is open to interpretation and is only your guess that it is CH), what makes you so sure it is representative of India? I am fervently hoping that you will not bring up this "microcosm " argument in any future arguments regarding CH.  I did not wish to debate the rights or wrong of CH, so I will leave all your arguments for it, we already debated about it and I am waiting for your response on the latest debate.


Actually, you never did tell me that. If anything, during our first discussion over CH, you narrated to me 2 separate instances of your friends standing up to Americans –you used these anecdotes to show that CH is non existent among those you know.

I am going by exactly what you told me – that you have not witnessed CH and therefore do not believe it exists.

And in fact, I fail to see why you are so upset by my comments. Microcosm means “ small, representative system having analogies to a larger system in constitution, configuration, or development”. I acknowledged only what you said and asked you if you feel that your experience can be generalized to the entire population  ?

Now let us flip the coin  -- what is my contention ? Did I say everyone suffers from CH ? I said there are sections which do –nowhere close to as definitive or sweeping a statement that you make.

Isn’t this really simple ? I have seen people react that way and I believe it exists among some sections of the population. You have not, you do not believe.

Fine with me, I am not forcing you to subscribe to my views. In fact, I have never brought that issue ever in a public debate unless I was specifically responding to a query about CH from you.

My friend, I am perfectly fine with where I am and with my perception that this issue is prevalent among certain sections of Indian society. If you do not believe it, it is entirely up to you and your prerogative. You will get no arguments from me.

Quote
Its not about validity of CH, but employing it to specific people because there is perceived injustice. This is similar to me meeting a guy from Bengal(believe me I did) who is a blind follower of SG and wants him in the team for another 10 yrs simply because he is the DADA and then I extrapolating it to everyone on this DG. will it be valid? isn't it regional bias? if it is , how can you support such "explaination" for their perceived injustice? By that token, can I accuse everyone from bengal on this DG of bias simply because I met one guy who is really biased? isn't it the same, to a lot of guys( who faced regional bias and parochial attitudes), regional bias  offers   an explanation of why SG might be able to get away with a lot of bad performances & why he is able to get so much support in Bengal(mind you this is based on their perception).

When did you see me support use of CH to castigate anyone ? I never have. My discussions with you have always been generic – as to whether CH exists or does not exist. There is nothing to support, condone, or condemn in this scenario if I have personally never used CH to castigate anyone.

All I have said is that my experience is that CH exists.

I fail to see how the rest of your post affects me in any way given that I do not support blind generalizations / stereotyping or extrapolations based on isolated instances –whether the issue is communalism, regionalism, racism, parochialism or accusing people of CH. 
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest

flute:

Quote
kban1, I don't think this is a valid argument. This of logic can be applied to pretty much everything in any situation, say *hi's assisination, 9/11, Rajiv *hi assasination or Jesus crucification. Each party will have its justification and its reasons, no matter who henious the action. When 2 people are debating, you need to present your view point on the correctness of a action or event, not other people's justification for it and then follow up to say "see there is can be the counter argument".


I think you are comparing apples to oranges here when you compare an assassination to whatever some people in Bengal did, not least because an assassination has a definitive result which is bad –you are taking someone’s life.

In this case, it is your attribution of these people’s support to regionalism vs  the alternative (support for a legitimate cause). There is no definitive action or inferences, only your surmising that it may have arisen from regional preferences.

That argument can be made for a variety of issues without proof – to quote a hypothetical example:
South Indians like Dravid because he represents South Zone / Karnataka.
Maharashtrians like Dravid  because he is a  Marathi.

Now, no matter how loudly I state this, people will shout back harder at me saying I am wrong. In this hypothetical situation, I may or may not have a point but I shall always get the opposite viewpoint which states that I am way off base.

There is simply no way to say if one is right or wrong in such cases.
I have no idea how a example to illustrate a point becomes analogous to comparing to different scenarios. The point here is, you can pretty much apply this type of logic to any scenario. anyway, I am tired of this argument

Quote
Quote
firstly, I don't remember rasta rokos,effigy burnings or political interference in a cricket related matter before. In that respect, this has a wrong precedent setting potential. Tomorrow when VVS or SRT gets dropped, Mumbai or Hyd might conduct mass protests and politicians will jump in to cash in.

Secondly, simply because it happened in India a lot, it doesn't make it RIGHT. This type of explaination really riles me a lot and a lot of Indians seem to do it to the lowering of standards. Someone said, everyone does it when I said Pramod Mahajan looted a lot of money thru corrupt practices. Also, the very fact that politicians based in WB jumped in shows that there is enough public opinion to be cash in. I don't think public protests & rail rokos & rasta rokos regarding a cricket selection, that too a specific cricketer's selection from a particular region are to brushed aside as "happens all the time".


Whether it has happened with cricket or not is irrelevant –it has happened for far frivolous issues. I find it hard to be the moral judge of what issues should be covered under one form of protest vs what issues should not be covered.
kban1, Why the double standards? you did not find it hard to be a moral judge of finger wagging outside the cricketing field Vs on the field transgressions, you did not find it hard to be the moral judge of what is acceptable culturally in India or other places in GC's finger wagging incident, isn't social mores and cultural values open to interpretation?

Anyway, my response was to your comment wondering what is the big deal about rasta rokos and rail rokos. To me , they are a matter of concern because I don't remember anything like that in cricket selection matters and is a bad omen with potential politicalization  of cricket selections. If you don't think it is the case, then you will probably have to give a more stronger argument than simply saying it happens all the time in India.


Quote
Doing a reality check is not the same as approving / condoning or lowering standards. Besides, to me, it is inconsequential to shout about it sitting in the US knowing that nothing I say or write will change it in India –unless I am willing to go there and take up some concrete action.
Isn't it true of all issues, why debate in DG at all? I am aware of the fact that anything we say here is not going to make much change in India.
Again my original opinion was, the frenzied reaction to SG's non-selection disappointed me and I am concerned about stuff like politicians interference, general rail rokos , sabotage by preparing green pitch, booing Indian team etc.


Quote
Quote
Its not about validity of CH, but employing it to specific people because there is perceived injustice. This is similar to me meeting a guy from Bengal(believe me I did) who is a blind follower of SG and wants him in the team for another 10 yrs simply because he is the DADA and then I extrapolating it to everyone on this DG. will it be valid? isn't it regional bias? if it is , how can you support such "explaination" for their perceived injustice? By that token, can I accuse everyone from bengal on this DG of bias simply because I met one guy who is really biased? isn't it the same, to a lot of guys( who faced regional bias and parochial attitudes), regional bias  offers   an explanation of why SG might be able to get away with a lot of bad performances & why he is able to get so much support in Bengal(mind you this is based on their perception).

When did you see me support use of CH to castigate anyone ? I never have. My discussions with you have always been generic – as to whether CH exists or does not exist. There is nothing to support, condone, or condemn in this scenario if I have personally never used CH to castigate anyone.

All I have said is that my experience is that CH exists.

I fail to see how the rest of your post affects me in any way given that I do not support blind generalizations / stereotyping or extrapolations based on isolated instances –whether the issue is communalism, regionalism, racism, parochialism or accusing people of CH. 
and when did I say that you supported use of CH? if you go back to my original post, I was talking about SG fans in general and nothing was specific to you. My complaint was about usage of CH to put down people who do not support SG.

Logged

justforkix

  • Global Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,896

flute :

Awesome personal text you have

Mr.Zero fame: Kindly refrain from using language which hurts other's sentiments.

 ;D :D ;D :D
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest

flute :

Awesome personal text you have

Mr.Zero fame: Kindly refrain from using language which hurts other's sentiments.

 ;D :D ;D :D
:) thank you..you see its only a matter of judgement call
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

flute:

Quote
I have no idea how a example to illustrate a point becomes analogous to comparing to different scenarios. The point here is, you can pretty much apply this type of logic to any scenario. anyway, I am tired of this argument

All I am saying is that its a poor illustrative example if thats what you want to call it. Killing someone is a definitive action. There is the act - killing, and there is the result -a dead man /woman. The murderer can have motives and thats why we have a court to determine guilt or innocence -- a decision which is given after hearing the perpetrator's and the victim's side of the story.

You attributing regional motives to someone supporting SG is a guess on your part. Its not a cut and dry issue because you are sitting in judgment on people who you do not know, people whose side of the story you have not heard. You just make a decision that this is due to regional fervor without listening to the other side.

Thats the difference I am trying to drive at. There are stories on both sides, and your side does not have to be the truth (especially when you dont know what the other side has to say). Some fans of SG might well support him because of regional affiliations, drawing a broad based conclusion is premature --thats all I said.

That does not mean that there are no persons who support Sg due to regional bias --there are, I am sure. Just that its unfair to generalize across the whole gamut of Sg supporters.

Quote
kban1, Why the double standards? you did not find it hard to be a moral judge of finger wagging outside the cricketing field Vs on the field transgressions, you did not find it hard to be the moral judge of what is acceptable culturally in India or other places in GC's finger wagging incident, isn't social mores and cultural values open to interpretation?


What double standards are you talking about. I was clear in my denouncing of GC's finger wagging as well as anyone else's finger wagging. You are the one who brought up RD's abusive language usage in the field.

And my response was abusive language is wrong. What I also did say is somethings happen in the field of play, not in public and there are degrees of culpability attached to something done in public (GC's finger wagging) vs something on the field (RD's abusive language). The reason being judgment involves determining an absolute first and then doing the comparative measurement -- perfect example is murder. Murder is wrong (absolute) but then you have to judge between premeditated (higher culpability) vs self defense (lower culpability). If this is what you term as double standards, then excuse me for not seeing the world in black and white glasses (while missing the grey shades)

Quote
Anyway, my response was to your comment wondering what is the big deal about rasta rokos and rail rokos. To me , they are a matter of concern because I don't remember anything like that in cricket selection matters and is a bad omen with potential politicalization  of cricket selections. If you don't think it is the case, then you will probably have to give a more stronger argument than simply saying it happens all the time in India.


Two points here:

1) Do you honestly believe our selection is devoid of politics that you are worried about the rasta rokos and bandhs called by some sections of society politicizing the selection process ?
If you believe our selection process is pristine and the rasta rokos and bandhs are a big impediment, then I have nothing to say

2) Go back and read my prior discussions with you on this topic. Almost every time I have made it clear that I personally do not approve of rasta rokos or bandhs or whatever yet you keep asking me the same questions --why ? Is it because I dont think its that big an issue as you make it out to be ? Sorry to disappoint you but I actually dont think its that huge an issue. That does not mean I approve of it (for the umpteenth time) though.

Quote
Again my original opinion was, the frenzied reaction to SG's non-selection disappointed me and I am concerned about stuff like politicians interference, general rail rokos , sabotage by preparing green pitch, booing Indian team etc.


Again please read my earlier stated opinions to you. I did not  approve of the Eden crowd (whichever sections were responsible) and all the other stuff that went with it. So I don't actually know what to say here.

Quote
My complaint was about usage of CH to put down people who do not support SG.


Valid complaint. I agree because without facts, it becomes stereotyping. I think thats what I was trying to convey in my prior post.

Again, in my opinion, that does not mean the CH theory is totally invalid. It becomes invalid and descends into stereotyping when you paint everyone with the same brush. I know right now that you will not agree with this part, so I shall agree to disagree with your stance right here itself.
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest

flute:

Quote
I have no idea how a example to illustrate a point becomes analogous to comparing to different scenarios. The point here is, you can pretty much apply this type of logic to any scenario. anyway, I am tired of this argument

All I am saying is that its a poor illustrative example if thats what you want to call it. Killing someone is a definitive action. There is the act - killing, and there is the result -a dead man /woman. The murderer can have motives and thats why we have a court to determine guilt or innocence -- a decision which is given after hearing the perpetrator's and the victim's side of the story.

You attributing regional motives to someone supporting SG is a guess on your part. Its not a cut and dry issue because you are sitting in judgment on people who you do not know, people whose side of the story you have not heard. You just make a decision that this is due to regional fervor without listening to the other side.

Thats the difference I am trying to drive at. There are stories on both sides, and your side does not have to be the truth (especially when you dont know what the other side has to say). Some fans of SG might well support him because of regional affiliations, drawing a broad based conclusion is premature --thats all I said.

That does not mean that there are no persons who support Sg due to regional bias --there are, I am sure. Just that its unfair to generalize across the whole gamut of Sg supporters.

I don't know why we are going in circles, I never generalized all SG supporters. My simple point was, I am disappointed with the predominant reaction from WB, as reported in the media. I even asked for input from vernacular press, how do we imply that to mean accusing all SG supporters of bias?

Based the reactions, type of comments, columns, news reports, type of protest like booing Indian team etc., I made a informed guess. It is nobody's case that each and everyone in the Eden garden on that day showed regional bias. But, I do feel that a predominantly disappointing reaction came out of WB, atleast for me. You are not obligated to agree with me. About guessing, isn't it same as you thinking some people show CH tendencies, it is a guess on your part , right? I am thinking noone actually told you that they have CH, right?


Quote
Quote
kban1, Why the double standards? you did not find it hard to be a moral judge of finger wagging outside the cricketing field Vs on the field transgressions, you did not find it hard to be the moral judge of what is acceptable culturally in India or other places in GC's finger wagging incident, isn't social mores and cultural values open to interpretation?


What double standards are you talking about. I was clear in my denouncing of GC's finger wagging as well as anyone else's finger wagging. You are the one who brought up RD's abusive language usage in the field.

And my response was abusive language is wrong. What I also did say is somethings happen in the field of play, not in public and there are degrees of culpability attached to something done in public (GC's finger wagging) vs something on the field (RD's abusive language). The reason being judgment involves determining an absolute first and then doing the comparative measurement -- perfect example is murder. Murder is wrong (absolute) but then you have to judge between premeditated (higher culpability) vs self defense (lower culpability). If this is what you term as double standards, then excuse me for not seeing the world in black and white glasses (while missing the grey shades)

First I think you are comparing apples to oranges here when you compare a murder  to whatever some people in Bengal did like finger wagging or bad language , not least because a murder has a definitive result which is bad –you are taking someone’s life.

Second, double standard I felt was in your reluctance to sit in judgement about doing rasta roko on frivolous grounds, but willing to judge if finger wagging or badbehaviour in public is worse than bad language on the field.


Quote
Quote
Anyway, my response was to your comment wondering what is the big deal about rasta rokos and rail rokos. To me , they are a matter of concern because I don't remember anything like that in cricket selection matters and is a bad omen with potential politicalization  of cricket selections. If you don't think it is the case, then you will probably have to give a more stronger argument than simply saying it happens all the time in India.


Two points here:

1) Do you honestly believe our selection is devoid of politics that you are worried about the rasta rokos and bandhs called by some sections of society politicizing the selection process ?
If you believe our selection process is pristine and the rasta rokos and bandhs are a big impediment, then I have nothing to say
why should both be mutually exclusive? if we already have some negative aspect in cricket, does it mean we condone or not be concerned about further possible deterioration of the situation? I am not sure how existing problems in cricket establishment is relevant here.

Quote
2) Go back and read my prior discussions with you on this topic. Almost every time I have made it clear that I personally do not approve of rasta rokos or bandhs or whatever yet you keep asking me the same questions --why ? Is it because I dont think its that big an issue as you make it out to be ? Sorry to disappoint you but I actually dont think its that huge an issue. That does not mean I approve of it (for the umpteenth time) though.

kban1, in one of your posts, you specifically wondered what the big deal is about, my posts above are trying to explain why I think it is a big deal. if you don't agree with it, but my logic is detailed above. In fact, I think these rasta rokos,rail rokos,frenzy about a single player's non-selection,political interference etc. are much much bigger concern than any finger wagging. comparatively, finger wagging is in bad taste and is trivial.


Quote
Quote
Again my original opinion was, the frenzied reaction to SG's non-selection disappointed me and I am concerned about stuff like politicians interference, general rail rokos , sabotage by preparing green pitch, booing Indian team etc.


Again please read my earlier stated opinions to you. I did not  approve of the Eden crowd (whichever sections were responsible) and all the other stuff that went with it. So I don't actually know what to say here.

its not about your approval, again, I think my main point we are discussing here is about my disappintment with reaction from WB, not about your reaction. may be you do agree with my overall disappiontment.


Quote
Quote
My complaint was about usage of CH to put down people who do not support SG.


Valid complaint. I agree because without facts, it becomes stereotyping. I think thats what I was trying to convey in my prior post.
atleast we agree about something.. :)

Quote
Again, in my opinion, that does not mean the CH theory is totally invalid. It becomes invalid and descends into stereotyping when you paint everyone with the same brush. I know right now that you will not agree with this part, so I shall agree to disagree with your stance right here itself.
you know my thoughts very well on this, so I will refrain from comment, suffice it to say, I don't agree.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

flute:

Quote
First I think you are comparing apples to oranges here when you compare a murder  to whatever some people in Bengal did like finger wagging or bad language , not least because a murder has a definitive result which is bad –you are taking someone’s life.

You must have be confused. You brought up murder or assassination in your post. I told you that you were comparing apples to oranges. You disagreed saying it was an illustrative example. When I responded using the same example you brought up, you are telling me I am comparing apples to oranges –wah bhai wah!!

Quote
Second, double standard I felt was in your reluctance to sit in judgement about doing rasta roko on frivolous grounds, but willing to judge if finger wagging or badbehaviour in public is worse than bad language on the field.

I am sorry that you did not comprehend my earlier posts. I made it quite clear I did not approve of rasta roko on frivolous grounds – not once but at least thrice over the past 6 months.

But I am not ready to make it as big an issue as you do simply because you feel so.

As far as rude public gesture vs onfield abuse is concerned, I disapprove of both (again repeated to you numerous times over several threads) –the former deserves a higher degree of culpability. That’s my opinion based on several different points –each of which has been patiently explained to you in the past on more than one thread. There is no double standard there just as there is no double standard in declaring a cold blooded murder to be a greater crime than  one committed in self defense.

Quote
why should both be mutually exclusive? if we already have some negative aspect in cricket, does it mean we condone or not be concerned about further possible deterioration of the situation? I am not sure how existing problems in cricket establishment is relevant here.

Quote
kban1, in one of your posts, you specifically wondered what the big deal is about, my posts above are trying to explain why I think it is a big deal. if you don't agree with it, but my logic is detailed above. In fact, I think these rasta rokos,rail rokos,frenzy about a single player's non-selection,political interference etc. are much much bigger concern than any finger wagging. comparatively, finger wagging is in bad taste and is trivial.

You must be one of the very rare few who sincerely believe that rasta rokos or calls for bandh will make the BCCI shift out of its inertia and make selection decisions influenced by the debilitating effects of such actions. An institution such as BCCI, which is founded and manned by power brokers, which institutionalizes personal gain, power hierarchies, status quo and is rampant with politics since the beginning is going to get politically corrupted by isolated rasta rokos and bandhs happening in a handful of states – I find this hard to believe.

I have nothing more to say to you on this.

And if you think rasta rokos or bandhs are more serious than a national coach flipping his finger, then that’s your opinion and your prerogative to hold that opinion. Please excuse me – I do not agree.

At the end of the day, we agree on a few things but not to their extent. And we disagree on quite a few.

Neither of us are going to convince the other of the other POV.

I am not going to post on this discussion anymore. Agree to disagree is an apt thought to end with here.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2006, 11:27:22 PM by kban1 »
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest

flute:

Quote
First I think you are comparing apples to oranges here when you compare a murder  to whatever some people in Bengal did like finger wagging or bad language , not least because a murder has a definitive result which is bad –you are taking someone’s life.

You must have be confused. You brought up murder or assassination in your post. I told you that you were comparing apples to oranges. You disagreed saying it was an illustrative example. When I responded using the same example you brought up, you are telling me I am comparing apples to oranges –wah bhai wah!!

 ::)  I have no idea why you are arguing in circles, we debated much mre smoothly earlier

1. My example was about using the very fact of perpetrator's POV to discount my opinion. You used murder in a totally different argument, so don't tell me you are simply using the example I gave.
2. you din't accept that murder example is a good example and gave your explaination, how are you now using it saying "perfect example"?
3. I said "apples to oranges" only in a sarcastic and half serious way, which is why I simply used your exact sentence.



Quote
Quote
Second, double standard I felt was in your reluctance to sit in judgement about doing rasta roko on frivolous grounds, but willing to judge if finger wagging or badbehaviour in public is worse than bad language on the field.

I am sorry that you did not comprehend my earlier posts. I made it quite clear I did not approve of rasta roko on frivolous grounds – not once but at least thrice over the past 6 months.

But I am not ready to make it as big an issue as you do simply because you feel so.

As far as rude public gesture vs onfield abuse is concerned, I disapprove of both (again repeated to you numerous times over several threads) –the former deserves a higher degree of culpability. That’s my opinion based on several different points –each of which has been patiently explained to you in the past on more than one thread. There is no double standard there just as there is no double standard in declaring a cold blooded murder to be a greater crime than  one committed in self defense.

kban1, below is your quote which I thought is not consistent with your willingness to judge in other situations. for the n'th time, it is not about CH, not about disapproving public gesture & onfield abuse etc., so quit telling me you disapprove of both.

Quote
Whether it has happened with cricket or not is irrelevant –it has happened for far frivolous issues. I find it hard to be the moral judge of what issues should be covered under one form of protest vs what issues should not be covered.

sorry I am finding it difficult to get across to you, but nope, I din't ask you to make rasta roko a big issue simply because I say so, I repeated several times my reasons, you kept bringing up how you disapprove it, how you are finding it hard to be the moral judge etc. without answering my main point. At the end, you are saying "simply because you say so"..very good


Quote
Quote
why should both be mutually exclusive? if we already have some negative aspect in cricket, does it mean we condone or not be concerned about further possible deterioration of the situation? I am not sure how existing problems in cricket establishment is relevant here.

Quote
kban1, in one of your posts, you specifically wondered what the big deal is about, my posts above are trying to explain why I think it is a big deal. if you don't agree with it, but my logic is detailed above. In fact, I think these rasta rokos,rail rokos,frenzy about a single player's non-selection,political interference etc. are much much bigger concern than any finger wagging. comparatively, finger wagging is in bad taste and is trivial.

You must be one of the very rare few who sincerely believe that rasta rokos or calls for bandh will make the BCCI shift out of its inertia and make selection decisions influenced by the debilitating effects of such actions. An institution such as BCCI, which is founded and manned by power brokers, which institutionalizes personal gain, power hierarchies, status quo and is rampant with politics since the beginning is going to get politically corrupted by isolated rasta rokos and bandhs happening in a handful of states – I find this hard to believe.

I have nothing more to say to you on this.

And if you think rasta rokos or bandhs are more serious than a national coach flipping his finger, then that’s your opinion and your prerogative to hold that opinion. Please excuse me – I do not agree.

At the end of the day, we agree on a few things but not to their extent. And we disagree on quite a few.

Neither of us are going to convince the other of the other POV.

I am not going to post on this discussion anymore. Agree to disagree is an apt thought to end with here.
kban1, what is your basis to so confidently that I am the very few who thinks rasta roko & other agitations relating to SG issue is a big deal? you wanna have a poll and see how it goes?

simply because your SG  is still not in the team inspite of agitations, it doesn't mean BCCI is immune to all political pressure generated out of it. Isn't govt. more powerful than BCCI, is govt. immune from rasta rokos? I don't know what is so difficult to understand about the issue I am trying to explain to you, not sure if you are choosing not to understand it.

For the nth the time, here is my take about these agitations

1. Rasta rokos and other public agitations about a isolated single player selection set the WRONG PRECEDENT. What if we see more of these in case all other senior players? what next, bandhs when it is time to say good bye to SRT? riots when VVS is dropped?
2. agitations are primarily done to mobilise public opinion and show strength of mass support, a deadly combination to happen to any sport if we start doing our selections based on mass support.
3. display enough public support and politicians will jump in and interfere to cater to their vote banks. there is circumstantial evidence to believe that SG was selected for Pak tour after things heated up with agitations in WB, matter being raised in parliament, speaker giving public support etc. So, there you go, example of how BCCI will get effected.

anyway, I am tired of arguing in circles..no moe posts on this from me.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966

As I said before, you seem to have trouble comprehending my posts (numerous past ones as well as the ones in this thread). Perhaps I have not been clear.

So at this point, it is fruitless to go over my arguments one by one to illustrate how every topic you have raised has actually been answered by me. Lets leave it at that.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up