Racial Slur Left Up

[BarbaraHoward]

Hi MN

I reported this post shortly after it was made this morning for using the slur "throw a paddy". I received an email saying it was being looked into, but despite a follow up email and then another report it's still up.

I've reported this phrase many times over the years (I'm sure you're sick of it, but I do think it's important to challenge racist language when we come across it) and it's usually taken down straight away. As I said in the email, I know the poster probably isn't aware of the phrase's origins which is why I didn't want to derail the thread. I also, frankly, don't have the energy today to have that row yet again.

Is there a change in moderating standards that means racist language is now left to stand? Should we be challenging everything on the boards?

Is anti semitism or anti traveller/gypsy sentiment racist?

Jewish people who are white do not experience racism. Anti-semitism yes, but not racism. Roma people are not the same as Travellers. White people in either group are not subjected to racism.

There are people within both demographics that might not be white, and in such cases racism will come into play. If they are white, then the prejudice applies to their status as Jewish and Roma people, not the colour of their skin.

A white Irish person faces prejudice yes, but it's not racism, and it shouldn't be painted as such.

Irish people may (traditionally) have the privilege of white skin, I'm not denying that for a second. But Irish people, travellers, Jewish people, Eastern Europeans and probably others I can't think of at this hour have all experienced racism within the UK and Ireland.

The notion that racism is only about skin colour comes from the US I think, but it doesn't track here.

ETA - not least in the law. I posted the Equality Act definition last night.

Sorry but you're wrong. Racism IS about skin colour, and white people do not experience racism because of their skin colour. Roma and Traveller people do absolutely experience prejudice, it's unfair and it's horrible, but it's not racism. It IS bigotry, and bigotry comes in many forms. Growing up I used to hear a ridiculous amount of anti Irish bigotry, especially when it was around alcohol as if people assumed they the Irish are always drunk and stupid. That is a deeply offensive thing to attach to an entire people, and the jokes made were awful. It's still not racism.

P*ddy is 10000000% a slur and shouldn't be used and I'm glad it's been removed now, but it's not about skin colour. I'm wondering if perhaps this would be a good time to suggest to @MNHQ an updated list of slurs be created, because gods only know we need less hate in the world, and we shouldn't have to fight for terms to be removed when they are upsetting and deeply offensive.

Do you think people here would be willing to help create an updated list for the site itself? It's a genuine question, a group collaboration to address this stuff.

Racism isn't just about skin colour. It often is, and that's terrible, but it isn't just about skin colour. That's why I quoted the equality act definition - if someone was discriminated against at work because of their nationality or ethnicity, it would be racial discrimination regardless of their skin colour. That's what the law says and it isn't really open for debate.

Discrimination is not necessarily racism. It can come from racism yes, but it's not the only method of discrimination which is part of my point.

We are going round in circles. Improperly assigning racism to white marginalised demographics doesn't help.

Hi there, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

When reviewing reported posts, we take into account factors like intent and context. For better or worse, it's clear most people using this term do not think it's a reference to Irish people and its origins warrant further examination. If the phrase were used intentionally as a personal attack, it would breach our guidelines. However, since many people use it without understanding its background, this might be a valuable opportunity to educate rather than simply remove all instances. We can understand if posters are frustrated that we don't always do what they want but to be clear MNHQ did answer the original report, and did investigate as promised.

Let us know if you have more thoughts - it's always helpful to hear different perspectives

Hi @BeckyAMumsnet

Thanks for your reply. This appears to be a change in policy, as "throw a paddy" has been deleted as standard for years now. As I said, I know it's not often used with intent to offend, but it is an offensive term. I'm quite sick of educating on this one tbh and as you can see from this thread (and many, many others over the years) I'm not the only Irish member who feels that way. It always derails the thread and turns into an argument and I thought MN preferred to deal with it through reports.

Could you explain the change in policy? Has this been agreed at MN as a company or is it down to variation between individual moderators?

Finally - yes, the initial report was replied to, but not my follow up email or second report several hours later.

ETA - I reported another use of the phrase this morning, and that post has also been left to stand. Why?

Can it not be added to a list of phrases that mean a post or thread is automatically hidden for evaluation? I know some phrases are automatically hidden in that way so it makes sense that new ones could be added. @mnhq

I don't think it needs to be automatically hidden - there's lots of legitimate uses, for example on name threads or yer man who did a thing for Children in Need. But I did think it was deleted once reported and I'm disappointed with the apparent change in policy.