Banned topics, pseudonyms, the silent majority

[Tabouli]

Just got today's OT digest.  Dear, dear, dear.  I was squinting to read through a veritable porcupine of hackles!  Up to a point a bit of rousing argument can be interesting, but this is taking on a rather nasty edge.  (Were the English bluebloods onto something in vetoing discussion of religion and politics at the dinner table?). Speaking for myself, a humble (albeit verbose) listmember, I have no problem with the three banned topics.

Banned Topic 1: I confess to curiosity about the book that must not be named, but so far not enough to rifle through the archives or ask the Mods, and certainly not enough to demand a repeal of the ban.  If I got energetic enough to rifle, and felt *compelled* to discuss it, well, hey, all posters' email addresses are visible... I could solicit a few people and conduct a discussion off-list.  Containing, hopefully, at least one person who was there in the infamous flamewar to fill us in.

Banned Topic 2: Have no problem steering away from the Holocaust, despite my cross-cultural slants on things.  It's welcome to stay banned.

Banned Topic 3: As for current politics, I occasionally feel inspired to mutter on the subject, but as I'm safely tucked away in Australia the odd mutter on my local politics doesn't seem to provoke any problems.  As for international politics, I'm occasionally tempted to have a rant, but I can do this with people I know in real life, or off-list with my various correspondents (HPFGU and otherwise).  If I really wanted the opinions of HPFGU-OT listmembers on a political issue, I could glance over the last few digests, pick some active listmembers who seem likely to have something interesting to say on the subject, and *email them off-list*.  Slightly less convenient than posting to the list, but not, IMO, a gross infringement of my personal liberties.

I suspect my main list musings on extreme individualism are applicable in this situation.  Is any restriction at all from authority figures on our freedom/right to choose to do and say exactly what we want when we want how we want oppression and tyranny most foul?

Reading through the "A response" thread, I did have one slight but persistent twitch, however.  Quite a few people were declaring Mafalda a "coward" for posting an antagonistic message under a pseudonym.  Erm, I thought, a little discomforted by the implications of this (perhaps I'd better make sure I never post anything antagonistic, eh?).

Hmmm.  I think I might cut Mafalda a bit of a break on this one, being a pseudonym user myself.  I know well about the ol' poison pen issue in real life (i.e. someone that sends anonymous nasty letters is considered a manipulative criminal), but given the nature of the internet, I'm inclined to think a direct parallel is inappropriate here.  Using a pseudonym is the norm in a lot of online circles.  It doesn't contravene any list rules I know of.  How much difference would it really make if Mafalda told us her real name?  Would it make her more answerable for her comments?  Would it really enable us to prove that her claims that what goes on among the Mods is "not pretty" are fabricated?  She could give us any plausible "real" name she wanted, as could almost anyone on any mailing list... how are we really going to know unless we do ID checks?? (which would offend a lot more people's versions of individualist freedoms...)

I'm using "Tabouli" rather than my real name because (a) I think my real name is boring, and is only rescued from complete uninspired Anglo-Saxon anonymity by my Chinese middle name, (b) I picked "tabouli" as the user ID for my mailing list email address, and (c) it's fun to have an HP fandom identity with a nickname (and broadcasting my real name far and wide would wreck the fun).  I also have a vague feeling that it might be iffy professionally if my clients and competitors in cross-cultural training (not to mention family, friends, dodgy exes...) could nip onto the Net, join HPFGU, and link me to every rant and opinion I've expressed on list, some of which I definitely wouldn't want them to see (though it would be amusing to see what they made of the acronym business...).  I suppose you could argue that this last is a bit "cowardly" (or at least, "paranoid"!), but I *know* how touchy my field is, and I'm calling it "prudent".  I realise that it would be very easy to identify me from my posts if someone were determined enough, but I'd rather put in a little safety gauge, and feel entitled to do so.

As for what I'll do when I eventually meet some listmembers in person, I'm still musing.  My current inclination is to tell them my real name, but use "Tabouli" socially.  I imagine it might be confusing to address me by my real name while simultaneously bearing in mind I'm actually the person-known-onlist-as-Tabouli...

>Mafalda: That is true, the members do not speak for you. Although, 
I've interviewed at least 20 members in the last year  about the 
moderator's actions and they've said they were afraid to write on a board and were
already shot down harshly before and decided not to write at all. That
shows that there is a group within the 4,000 strong (I can't say a
definite number of people) over at HPFGU that don't like the way the
moderators act. And these people that I interviewed were in their mid
twenties to late twenties so I can't speak for the over thirty and 
under twenty people on this.<

This I found interesting.  I always suspected that the main reason for the silent majority was intimidation, but not intimidation inflicted by the Mods per se.  More that the tone of the list is pretty intellectual and requires putting a lot of energy into keeping up with posts and scrutinising the HP novels to a truly obsessive degree for regular participation.  Also, and perhaps most significantly, the fact that just about every single possible interpretation or observation to be gleaned from a normal (as opposed to obsessively scrutinising) read of the HP books has already been ambushed, tortured and beaten to death umpteen times in overwhelming detail.  I imagine that a constant stream of "we've covered that about 10 times in the past year, check the archives", understandable though it is for longer term listmembers, could be off-putting and embarrassing for many.  They may well feel inhibited becaue they feel they have nothing new to contribute, or that the HP fandom they thought they possessed is a veritable grain of sand beside the monolithic obsession of the die-hards.

Out of curiosity, Mafalda, how did your interviewees all manage to be mid to late twenties?  Did you hand-pick them from their ages on the membership list?  If so, why that age bracket particularly... is it the one you belong to?  It's the one I belong to, but I didn't get interviewed, not that this bothers me.  I'm happy with the job the admins are doing, and, insofar as one can tell from people's fictional selves on-list, like them personally.  Of course, that may be because I enjoy SHIPping with Penny, relish sparring with Amy Z, and sympathise with John's reactions to condemnation of homosexuality and non-establishment religions (while simultaneously recognising that their tone is confronting, and likely to ruffle some feathers...)

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]