Concerns about racism

[PandoraSocks]

Hi there Mumsnet HQ

Many of us are concerned about the uptick of hatred, xenophobia and racism on the site over the past couple of weeks. Most of the bigotry is focused on asylum seekers. MNHQ will of course delete racism etc. if reported, but this has gone way beyond a few hateful posts.

Links below to three examples of threads which have descended into real nastiness.

Cheers.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5385273-civil-unrest-whats-really-going-on?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5385914-do-you-believe-there-will-be-a-civil-war?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5386073-to-be-so-fed-up-amd-disheartened-with-all-the-xenophobia?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

If you hadn't started your ill mannered derailing then refused to stop despite being asked politely the thread wouldn't have been diverted.

I am looking forward to Zonder's Rosemary and Cheese biscuit recipe.

Fair enough. I'm going to go on reporting. That third linked thread in your OP was about the most appalling one I've seen here and nearly caused me to stop posting.

It is eye poppingly awful.

This to me is an unacceptable comment. It implies that you don't care about women and children if you feel that refuees have the right to seek asylum.

The implication is that they are coming specifically to cause harm- for the vast majority this is not true.it does get the last government, and to a certain extent this one off the hook for not processing refugees quickly enough, or having safe, legal routes where refugees are approved before coming (although I wait to see what the new arrangement with France brings before casting judgement on the current government).

I find the blanket judgement on people because they are different to you unacceptable and divisive. It emboldens those who would weaponise this division for their own ends and I feel that leaving them on forums like this gives the unacceptable respectability.

I gave an example of the type of thing and you instructed me to copy and paste an exact example from other threads and commanded that it had to be verbatim so you knew full well if I posted something you could weasel word out of it. I am neither your lackey nor your whipping boy.

Negative generalisations about whole cultures are discrimatory, harmful stereotypes at best, hate speech at worst. There shouldn't have to be a checklist that you can vet or quibble over. I've had to explain to people before why I don't want to be labelled and explain why the label is negative. It's tiresome, draining, exhausting. And you know it. I'm also on holiday so have other things to do and a time difference.

By James logic all men should be shot at sexual maturity to prevent harm to women and children - immigrants or not

To me race hate includes all negative generalisation - such as immigrants are a risk to women , it includes unfounded implications like “are you not worried about women and girls ?” It includes the automatic linking of illegal with any discussion on immigration

the OP posted a whole set of threads that exhibited racism and yet James asks for more and more specific

how are the hangovers?

Detailed statistics are being collected now on the profile of perpetrators. If - and that’s if - they show asylum seekers from Afghanistan are far more likely to commit sex attacks, would you still advocate for them arriving unvetted in their thousands? Or would you seek to limit this niche area of immigration because of the heightened risk?

So you think nobody should be able to make disparaging remarks about ‘the British’ for example? Because I don’t find it offensive, but I see it sometimes on here.

Having thought about this thread, I thought it might be pertinent to post this link, which explains the difference between misinformation and disinformation.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/misinformation-vs-disinformation-get-informed-on-the-difference/

I think a lot of the stuff we see on MN (and elsewhere on social media) falls into the former category. But what we’re seeing a lot more of here - which is why this is relevant to this thread - is disinformation.

It’s erroneous stuff that’s posted/reposted deliberately, with malicious intent.

I think james is possibly waiting to see if someone quotes them. It's a game. What larks.

I don’t think anyone comes to cause harm, even if they do. But I think, as is the case in Sweden, further analysis will show men from certain countries are a far higher risk to women than others. What then? Are women an acceptable price to pay to accommodate people from other countries?

Thank you! I think lots of people say posters are misinformed and let them off whereas I see many disinformation campaigns. See also vaccines.

Hate speech, imo, includes any comments or statements where there is a clear intent to stir up hatred against particular groups or communities. That includes statements which are very carefully worded to avoid getting deleted.

We are all able to recognise hate speech when we see it, and no amount of faux innocence will enable you to wriggle out of it.

How incredibly depressing that this thread has been found and derailed by one of the most prolific posters on problematic threads. MN is seething with threads about immigration yet they have to post on a discussion with MN about how to counter the overwhelming amount of racism elsewhere.

Thank you for having the courage to raise the issue @PandoraSocks. What a shame the thread you started in good faith has been hijacked.

I think we need to get data and even an open acknowledgment of “acceptable” risk before leaping to judgement and knee jerk reactions

there are other categories of men who seem to offend at a higher rate than average if their presence in the prison population is analysed - we have only just decided these men shouldn’t be allowed in the women’s prisons.

by “acceptable “ risk - I bet people go on holiday to countries - South Africa for a specific example - where violence against women and girls is hugely higher than the UK, and even to the states where murder and gun violence is much higher so there are implicit concepts of acceptable risk - and like I say we don’t kill all men again implying that we will trade some lives of women for the lives of men

Derailed? I’m asking for clarification directly from the OP about the topic she or he posted. They’re by this point posting biscuit recipes. Who is derailing? It’s always the case that when the questioning gets a bit tough, they run away, or say you’re derailing etc

A definition or example would help everyone involved.

And, you know @JamesMacGill, I am perfectly capable of being concerned about the safety and welfare of asylum seekers as well as that of women and girls. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Your posts about women and the dangers to them apparently presented by immigrants are, quite frankly, verging on the hysterical.

So how will a precise definition of racism simple enough that you can understand help you to decide how racism should be managed on this site ?

perhaps you can explain the nuances you are thinking of ?

The examples are in the threads posted. You don’t need to look below the first page to find examples. I’m not going to quote comments that quite frankly shouldn’t be on here. I have no interest in spreading hate.

Ah, ‘hysterical’…

Dramatic, then, if you prefer.

Because we all seem to be at cross purposes at to what racism actually is. To me it’s using pejorative terms, or racial profanities, advocating violence toward a certain ethnicity, or blanket exclusionary statements like ‘no foreigners here’.

I don’t think it’s racist to be concerned about a specific group where evidence suggests the risk of poor attitudes to women is higher, and dozens of attacks have already taken place. I have said repeatedly on those threads I have no issue with Afghan women and children receiving asylum, if I was simply racist would I say this? And I have zero concerns about other forms or types of immigration. I have general overcrowding concerns but that’s not the same thing.

Definitely.

Of course a public opinion forum shouldn't be policed. Shutting down of posts/threads because they don't agree with your opinion is further eradication of free speech.