Racist Threads

[PhilippaGeorgiou]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but I thought AIBU would be ok. I am not running this as a poll, because I don't care about anyones opinions on the matter. And if anyone wants to respond with more racism, don't bother because I won't be engaging for even a second.

Right at the moment this site is not being overrun by racists because MNHQ has determined that there are no racists on the site and it's abuse to tell anyone they are a racist (even when they are). However, there are multiple threads expressing racism every single day, all rehearsing the same old misinformation and bogus narratives. Not one of those posters want to engage - they become abusive and offensive if anyone produces remotely evidenced facts. Their "facts" are the only truthful facts. Everyone else is a "woman hating woke leftist". Which is apparently not abus, according to MNHQ. MNHQ have made is abundantly clear that they will not moderate misinformation, and are blithely happy to allow most abuse to stand.

Here's the thing - there's pretty much nobody on those threads that is genuinely interested in having a discussion or debating information. There is nobody jumping on those threads saying that they don't really understand the different views and positions and would like to know more. Unsurprising, anyone who actually wants to explore the issue, the absolute last place to look to do that would be yet another toxic thread here. Probably the only good thing is that it really is highly unlikely anyone with a real curiousity about the subject would look to form opinions based on the toxic formula of MN.

The only thing that these threads are good for is clicks and ££££'s in the bank for Justine and the site.

So anti-racists - I suggest that we all stop answering these threads altogether. I know it is hard to see the racism stand (although apparently not for the owners of the site or the moderators) unchallenged, but every single challange does nothing but feed the flames and earn money for MN. You all know that the people who are not racists will spend 20% of their posts posting misinformation and 80% posting goady barbs and personal insults, just to keep the threads going. It will be incredibly boring for them if they only have each other to talk to. The threads will die without oxygen. And MN makes no money out of clicks that haven't happened. It's a win all around.

And if you want to do something proactive, instead of engaging with people who aren't going to listen, why not raise your concerns about the racism with the advertisers? They are being associated with it by their presence, and are clearly far more likely to influence the owners of the site than the people posting on it.

So, just to be clear, are you suggesting that all asylum seekers should stop at the first safe country they reach?

Which means that, as an island, we probably wouldn't have any.

That might suit the agenda of some, but that's hardly fair?

Doesn't it make sense for asylum seekers to request refuge in a country where they have a better chance of carving out a life because they already speak the language? It makes perfect sense to me that those who speak English would prefer to seek asylum in Britain because if granted, they could more easily work and become a valuable part of society. Seeking refuge in a country where you don't speak the language makes it less likely that you can make a contribution and settle effectively - and surely no one wants that?

France has historically always had high numbers of French-speaking asylum seekers from African nations. It's the same thing.

I think the point is that some people seem to think the UK is taking vast swathes of asylum seekers when the reality is that other countries are taking far more. Last year we were the 17th in Europe when calculated using the number of asylum seekers per capita.

It's a very long way from the claim that everyone is making their way to us. There's a general world increase in asylum seekers, but it feels as if the world is particularly volatile, so it's perhaps not a surprise. The fact is we take LESS than the European average, and fewer per capita than many other nations.

I can't see how it's fair that we don't take asylum seekers just because we're not attached to the mainland.

Yeah, it’s kind of a cautionary tale about what can happen if you cannot or will not defend your borders.

I hate to point out the obvious but not much more than a few hundred years ago your land was 100% non White.

Just seen your response . That's an interesting response to the attempt to wipe out the North American Indians.

They most certainly weren't .

People claimed they 'didn't realise' they were in Staffroom or that the threads were 'In Active' so it was for anyone to comment.

I've seen the same said to people in eg Black Mumsnetters.

I do find it interesting that many posters are quick to call others and the content of their posts racist, but will argue against themselves being labelled transphobic.

I imagine the majority of both “racists” and “transphobes” are coming from a place of genuine concern. I would also guess that the ones doing the labelling can’t see past their own viewpoint and narrow life experiences of not being impacted by misogyny or migration and therefore resort to name calling.

Why does it matter what the ratios of various skin-tones are ?

This is sadly what happens when you cannot or will not defend your borders. Maybe you should reconsider your stance if you think what happened to them was tragic and sad (I do!)

Or maybe you think, hey! We are all human beings anyway, and there’s no such thing as an ethnic native american since they arrived in different waves of migration and never saw each other as a unified people anyway!!!!

Did I suggest that alll asylum seekers should stop at the first safe country? No.

I was responding to a post in which the poster asked why another poster didn’t believe the asylum seekers are genuine.

I then made an observation that people coming to the UK have already travellled through safe European countries and chosen to take a dangerous journey across the Channel. This feels counter intuitive to their status as people fleeing from danger.

And this may be why some people in the UK and on Mumsnet view them as economic migrants rather than asylum seekers.

I don’t know what I think, if I’m honest.

People divide themselves among their own ethnic communities.

You may not like that, but it’s human nature and you’d have to be literal fascist to get them to stop.

It's jam first and scone rhymes with stone. I will not be persuaded otherwise.

There’s a common misconception that migration has been happening for centuries in Britain.

It hasn’t. The number of migrants in the last 30 years is more than all the migrants combined from the 5th century to the Second World War.

I'm as American as you are, sweetie. Just so you know and can stop informing me about my own history.

same shit

We are all human beings anyway, and there’s no such thing as an ethnic native american since they arrived in different waves of migration and never saw each other as a unified people anyway!!!!

Native just means they're from there, not that they were there at the same time.

I like cheese scones with a bit butter

Yeah true, but there were absolutely loads in AIBU and Chat.

I mean the majority of posters moaning about teachers or posting about school problems, didn't post in the Staff Room topic because why would they?

Conveniently ignoring the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and half of the 90s ?

Jam first is wrong because cream acts like a foundation that masks the cracks of the scone. Like plaster on a wall.

Scone rhymes with gone, because in my house they're all gone.

There's no point in going over this. Because they did. They thought they had a right to post.

Ancient history but definitely a reason not to start the same tactic because the people being stonewalled sure didn't like it , and it didn't work .

Not really. If you want to add those decades in, it just makes the numbers of recent migration even higher. I said that people believed migration into Britain had been happening for centuries. My point still holds true.

But migration in between 1945 and 1997 was still relatively low. It’s been on steroids since Blair.

Obviously that’s why they have that label, but it was applied for the convenience of settlers. Of course they never saw each other as a unified people. And they had every right to do so, since they aren’t necessarily close kin. But it left them very vulnerable.

MN is full or tree huggers who have no prejudices.

In all my years on MN I’ve never seen racism, transphobia, homophobia, or misandry.

Cheese scones are a frankenstein food.

We may have to settle for 'Recollections may vary' 😁