Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Effective measures against threads that encourage racism and misogyny

372 replies

rockingchaircandle · 07/06/2020 09:45

I posted yesterday about the series of threads on Meghan Markle. In emails MN have acknowledged that they struggle with the subtle and not-so-subtle racism these threads bring.

The post led to discussions where many women, especially women of colour, explained how these threads made them feel.

Posters who have formed a clique around anti-Meghan threads, used another thread to organised the spamming of the thread to derail it. MN have also said they are going to take a longer, overall look at the posters who we feel are not here with good intentions. However the entire thread was deleted, as the posters intended and the debate was shut down, and those voices lost.

Unfortunately the thread degenerated to the point it was no longer salvageable, and so we had no option but to delete it. We want to allow free discussion as much as possible, especially on such an important topic as anti-racism, but sometimes when we have to make lots of deletions, threads end up with so many holes that it makes no sense to keep them up. We hope you understand where we're coming from. The derailing posts were obvious - they were either personal attacks or reference to TV shows etc. They could have deleted them. There are now another 2 threads up about Meghan Markle.

So, I know this will probably get deleted, but to the people who posted yesterday I just wanted a message to show that not everyone agrees with this. I'm sorry, MN have heard - I hope they will do something more effective if they truly think anti-racism is an important topic.

OP posts:
Froq · 09/06/2020 14:26

But that’s where it moves from a discussion to what feels like an attack.

There’s a huge difference between:

‘I hated her shoes, they’re hideous’

  • ‘I disagree, I loved the shoes’

To

‘I hated her shoes, they’re hideous’

  • ‘You’re wrong. Why do you even care? Why do you continue to attack a WOC? Why are you addicted to this topic?’

It’s stifling and crushes discussion.

Roussette · 09/06/2020 14:43

I've never said anything remotely like your second example.

I searched the word 'addicts' in advanced search under my name. Nothing.

My MO was always...
'I hated her shoes, they're hideous'
'I actually liked them because I felt they went with her outfit'

amusedtodeath1 · 09/06/2020 14:52

Is this thread a wind up? Shock

Uppity is racist? Shock

Froq · 09/06/2020 14:57

@Roussette it was an example, not a direct quote.

SenecaFallsRedux · 09/06/2020 15:06

Uppity is racist?

When applied to a person of color, yes. It's suggests that they don't know their place. Maybe the full connotation hasn't yet made its way across the pond, but it is universally understood to be racist in the US when used to describe a black person.

amusedtodeath1 · 09/06/2020 15:10

I'm sorry OP but all I see is a group of people trying to control the narrative by assuming any criticism comes from a racist perspective. This thread is almost funny. It's like two bald men fighting over a comb.

Let the Mods do the moderating, it's not up to you to decide what is allowed. You're not an expert in what is or isn't racist.

amusedtodeath1 · 09/06/2020 15:12

It that so, well I never knew that. However the majority of people posting are from the UK and can't be expected to know that, therefore is was obviously said in good faith.

SetPhasersTaeMalkie · 09/06/2020 15:13

@amusedtodeath1

I'm sorry OP but all I see is a group of people trying to control the narrative by assuming any criticism comes from a racist perspective. This thread is almost funny. It's like two bald men fighting over a comb.

Let the Mods do the moderating, it's not up to you to decide what is allowed. You're not an expert in what is or isn't racist.

@MNHQ disagree with you and @JustineMumsnet has commented on this thread.
SetPhasersTaeMalkie · 09/06/2020 15:14

@JustineMumsnet

Hello

Thanks for starting this thread and for all your thoughts. Here’s where we stand from a moderation point of view:

We absolutely acknowledge that there’s a real issue underpinning some of the feelings and vitriol towards Meghan Markle and that racism - deliberate or unwitting, overt and covert - is undoubtedly in the mix.

We absolutely do not tolerate racism or any form of hate speech on Mumsnet and will always delete such posts when they're reported to us. Usually this is pretty obvious and clear cut but just occasionally there are some grey areas, and the decision about what is racist isn’t always so clear or unanimous. But we will listen carefully to what you tell us in your posts and in your reports, so please do keep flagging things up and we promise to evaluate as carefully and thoughtfully as we can.

On the thread that was deleted for ‘being a bunfight’: hands up - we screwed up. First, we take the point about the use of the term ‘bunfight’ to describe serious disagreement on serious topics and we will stop doing this - please remind us if we forget (we’ve all been using the term for so long that it slips out sometimes). We agree ‘bunfight’ is appropriate for parking threads but not for discussions about racism. Secondly, in hindsight we should have bent over backwards to keep this thread up and delete guideline-breaking posts. In our defence, deleting threads that are causing hundreds and hundreds of reports is sometimes the only proportionate thing we can do - leaving them up, and dealing with the reports, means that other reports about other important issues don’t get dealt with in a timely way. But we accept the argument that in this case, deleting that thread had a disproportionate impact. Apologies.

Just on a point of order, the N word is an instant delete for us (and a big red flag about any user who uses it), except in very limited circumstances (such as a person of colour talking about their own experiences of racist abuse), in which cases we sometimes asterisk it out instead of deleting it. So we’re surprised by the report here of an instance of it going undeleted - if you can find that post, please do put a link here or report it to us. NB we do have a word filter that we use for spam and we will add this to that, so from now on it will be auto-deleted.

Here’s some more stuff we’re going to do going forwards:

We've recently banned some repeat offenders for subtle and not-so-subtle racism but we are going to redouble our efforts to make sure we’re quicker to ban those who repeatedly have posts removed for racism and to do everything we can to catch determined racists who re-register.

For now, we are going to limit the number of threads running about Meghan Markle. As some of you know this has been our approach on Madeleine McCann threads for some time. Frankly, both topics attract some obsessive attention for reasons that we don’t fully understand - but both are also the subject of genuine interest and news stories in the media and among the public at large. We will keep all discussion to one or two threads, and will look very carefully at reports about overt or covert racism. We will also be minded to delete bottom-feeding internet rumours (although not, to be clear, posts about stories that have appeared in mainstream outlets) - so again, please do report any you see.

While it's perfectly possible for people to criticise her because of things she’s said or done, there's no doubt that some of the flack Meghan Markle has faced is also due in no small part to her being a prominent black woman. So we will work harder to bear this context in mind and crack down harder on people who seem to be on Mumsnet mainly to contribute posts that criticise her or speculate about her actions in an unpleasant way. Because frankly, it’s not what we want Mumsnet to be about.

Lastly we think it’s problematic - not only on threads about Meghan Markle but on other sensitive issues too - when some users aggressively close down posters who dissent from the prevailing opinion. We do believe in the benefits of diversity of opinion and debate as lots of you will know, and that does mean tolerating other people’s points of view even if you disagree with them. We think calling people derailers or handmaidens, or calling ‘grey rock’ when someone posts, with the intent of driving them away from a discussion, is not on and we will take firmer action on this from now on. Can we ask you to help on this please by reporting these posts when you see them?

Thanks so much for your input - it’s been genuinely useful for us to take a bit of time internally to revisit this, collect our thoughts and to lay out our approach and where we stand.

Here it is.
amusedtodeath1 · 09/06/2020 15:17

I do hate that a fairly benign word now has racist connotations.

Yet another word I will never feel safe using, because some bastards used it to oppress black people.

Humans are just the worst.

amusedtodeath1 · 09/06/2020 15:21

So basically MNHQ say, yes there is a problem, we are working on it, but not every criticism of MM is racist.

And you take that to mean you are right and everything is racism?

To me that says you should back off and let them do their job.

Roussette · 09/06/2020 15:22

Grin Froq
Of course I know it was just an example not a quote!
And I was giving you an example of my response back!
(That's why I called it my modus operandi)

Roussette · 09/06/2020 15:24

I am very confused.

Nowhere have I read that anyone is saying that every criticism of MM is racist.
It so obviously isn't.

Why are posters saying this?

SetPhasersTaeMalkie · 09/06/2020 15:27

And you take that to mean you are right and everything is racism?

You??? Do you mean the OP? I don't think she or anyone else has said that but am happy to be corrected.

ButteryPuffin · 09/06/2020 16:30

OP has said not all criticism of Megan Markle is racist (those exact words, I read it). Justine on behalf of MN has said not all criticism of
Meghan Markle is racist. So that is a starting point that everyone should be able to agree on. We should all also be able to agree that racist posts are unacceptable. MN has said they will look at posts reported for racism more carefully, but also that this will be done on a case by case basis and bear context in mind. All that seems reasonable to me.

The point Rousette, Froq and I are making - and I think we have some differences but are broadly on common ground with this - is that all posters should be willing to explain their own view, not just shout others down, say how horrible they are, or tell people to go away and post elsewhere. They should also be willing to listen to other views. At times they may have to civilly agree to disagree, and/or report a post to MN who are the final, and indeed only, adjudicators of what is allowed.

ButteryPuffin · 09/06/2020 16:37

One more thing. A few posts here have referred to 'having to engage' with opposing or hostile views. I don't see that anywhere in MN's statement. They said they don't want people derailing - which I take as attempting to divert posters from contributing, or as posting content that directly or indirectly suggests posters should go elsewhere or should be made to feel unwelcome. However, no poster is ever obliged to respond to another, in my view. So opposing views must be tolerated and can't be shut out, but at the same time, each individual poster can make their own decision about whether they want to enter a debate or not. I would prefer not to see posts about how 'people won't or can't engage' as if this is something people have to do. They don't. They just shouldn't respond in a derailing or attacking way.

Roussette · 09/06/2020 16:56

I agree Buttery
AFAIC ... I'm always happy to listen to someone else's opinions and it has to work both ways in that yes, agreeing to disagree is sometimes the only option.

I am trying to imagine how that will work when MM is, for instance, called a stream of names, damaged, a loser, a narcissist, dangerous, a diva, evil and so on ... there are no options for someone like me who find her none of those things and find that sort of post (and yes, it can sometimes be all in one post) unpleasant and awful.
There is no point in trying to put a view forward on that sort of stuff.

I'm not calling 'racist' on a post like that, but I bet that's what will be thrown at me for reporting.
Of course I don't have to engage with posts like that, but should they honestly be left to stand?
I don't think so.

I said this elsewhere once a while back....
If someone posted in the Tack Room about how wonderful their horse is and how much they loved riding. I won't go in there and say 'Urghhhh, I hate horses'.
But this is different.

When someone is... AFAIC being attacked unfairly, I find it difficult to scroll by and let that stand. I don't find MM awful and don't think there should be corners of MN to just lay into a woman.

I thank you Buttery for your dialogue on this. It's all about finding common ground isn't it.

Froq · 09/06/2020 17:18

Also agree Buttery.

I am trying to imagine how that will work when MM is, for instance, called a stream of names, damaged, a loser, a narcissist, dangerous, a diva, evil and so on

I agree it would be difficult attempting a discussion with someone who posts those things. Just as it is difficult to engage with posters who will call other posters a stream of names such as racist, hateful and obsessed just for sharing an opinion on M.*

With your example, those posts should be quickly deleted as they constitute a personal attack.

*not referring to you here

Roussette · 09/06/2020 17:32

Thank you, yes.

Well.... it's all about respecting each others views

ChocolatelyAsFuck · 09/06/2020 17:44

Turning a blind eye to racism is racist.

Defending racist opinions on the grounds all opinions are equally valid is racist (and hypocritical, since many of the posters crying censorship lose their shit and abuse the report button if anyone even mildly criticise or repeats gossip about Kate).

Defending racism on the grounds of being “anti-censorship” is racist (and hypocritical since almost no one on MN objects to the “censorship” of antivaxx or overtly misogynistic posts).

The derailing, DARVOing, twisting, manipulation, and gaslighting on this and other threads is unreal.

You don’t give a shit about “censorship” you’re just butthurt that one of your many avenues to engage in your favourite super fun game of “giving Meghan a good kicking” has been taken away from you, and are trying desperately to turn “not being allowed to be racist bullies” into some sort of free speech issue.

ChocolatelyAsFuck · 09/06/2020 17:48

Oh and it’s also racist to believe that calling someone “a racist” is just as bad as calling them “n***r.”

That being accused of racism is worse than someone actually being racist.

That racism has nothing to do with systemic oppression and is just “a person of one colour being mean to a person of a different colour”.

That “anti-white racism” is an equal or bigger problem than anti-black racism.

SenecaFallsRedux · 09/06/2020 17:58

I don't think that every negative post about MM is racist. That is an absurd notion. But I do think that the sheer number of negative threads about her and the ferocity with which many posters criticize her, especially those who rely on the murkier outposts of the internet and the "I-know-someone-who-knows someone-who-worked-with-her sort of resource, suggest fairly strongly that there is a questionable agenda from some posters. There is also the issue of enabling racism by piling on these questionable threads.

I think that there are some posters on MN who would do well to examine their possible unconscious bias.

And then there is the misogyny. Just the language often used about her is deeply misogynistic.

rockingchaircandle · 09/06/2020 18:20

The statement is there, and it looks to me like they will be good measures against racism and misogyny while allowing free debate.

While we were asking for them, a group of posters who are now mainly banned made it very difficult, by using the tactics that Justine's statement has now made clear isn't acceptable. I have not bullied anyone. Don't target me unless you have reference to something specific I said because I got sick of the personal attacks this weekend.

The MN statement said that the decision on what is racist will be left up to MN. I don't think discussing specific words is that helpful out of context, but assuming the poster is asking in good faith, to me, yes uppity is racist and I'm from the UK. But the point of this thread was not to test out racist words. Start your own one for that, and see how far you get.

There's not really much more to be said other than inventing straw man arguments. If you have a problem with it, take it up with MN and explain what part of the measures they have outlined you don't like. That was the point of the thread.

OP posts:
ButteryPuffin · 09/06/2020 18:43

,a group of posters who are now mainly banned made it very difficult

rocking, have MN told you that posters have been banned? Have they told you how many, and have they told you which specific posters have been banned?

There's not really much more to be said other than inventing straw man arguments.

Though obviously, closing down discussion on how to move forward productively isn't on, right? Because that's the conversation I like to think I've been in this afternoon. People are free to disagree of course.

OverUnderSidewaysDown · 09/06/2020 18:45

uppity is racist and I'm from the UK
Have to disagree with you there. Uppity has never had racist connotations in the UK. It has class connotations, meaning someone is acting above their so-called station in life. Which is nasty. But not racist.

Swipe left for the next trending thread