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

The thread is about how to moderate for racism, removing racist views.
You characterised this as people wanting to shut down different opinions. The thread is only about removing racist posts and Mis/disinformation. So if you think the people asking for that want to silence mainstream/different views, you must think racism shouldn’t be removed. It’s the only logical conclusion as far I can see. Unless you would like to elaborate and explain what I’ve misunderstood.

Of course, I completely agree. But the post broke guidelines, someone gleefully pounced on it and reported. MNHQ had to delete as there was no way of arguing it wasn't a personal attack.

The lesson is, keep to Talk guidelines and post within them. Something some posters are very, very good at whilst dripping their poison.

It's another consequence of asking posters to 'challenge it on the thread' rather than moderating properly.

So the poster who is rightfully outraged at what is being said challenges it strongly and then ends up being deleted while the original post that they were told to challenge remains.

This further contributes to things being left unchallenged - the posts challenging are deleted for crossing the line, and the poster challenging gets pissed off at being deleted and gives up/completely loses faith in the moderation.

Can you quote in something I’ve said that could be considered straw manning?

I think I’ve been quite clear. Some people are attempting to shut down main stream views they don’t agree with by saying they are racist. I’ve had 4 or 5 comments implying my original post was racist as a case in point.

I agree, but I think this example highlights why the talk guidelines themselves - or at least the moderators' interpretation and application of them - need to be reviewed.

But what sort of forum is this if people are deleted for calling racist posters despicable while the racism itself is allowed to stand?

I suppose it's a difficult line to know where to draw, isn't it?
I mean, the rules say no personal attacks. So if someone is being an arsehole for example, maybe not say it (hard as that may be sometimes!) as it endangers whole posts going that might have been informative.

Who is trying to do that?

Have you considered that what they're referring to might actually be racist?

Cross posted, yes this

Is racism being seen as main stream views or are main stream views being misrepresented as racism for a extreme political agenda? I’d say the latter.

I agree. I have repeatedly and endlessly been called racist despite the fact when challenged they can never post verbatim evidence of my ‘racism’. I feel it’s just a lazy fallback sometimes because they are stuck and can’t logically argue their way out of something. Same with TRAs calling women bigots when they raise something virtually irrefutable. I’m sure there are racist posts on here, I think I’ve seen a few, but overwhelmingly it’s just an accusation made because they don’t like what is being discussed.

Wow! Show us who you are, why don't you?

So what you are saying is, mainstream views shouldn't ever be challenged? That mainstream views can't be racist or bigoted?

There are plenty of views that were once mainstream and acceptable, but are now seen as racist or bigoted. Because people stood up against them.

Which extreme political agenda do you mean? I am asking genuinely.

Ive gotta politely and respectfully disagree with an idea of ignoring all derailing posters. I think it’s because I’ve had it done to me on MN, though of course I didn’t see my comments as derailing, just presenting a different view.

For sure there is a point things come to with some posters where further engagement is useless, and everyone will have a different line on that. I’ve hit mine just now. And for sure it is frustrating continuing to engage when you’re pretty confident that point is coming in the future.

I guess what I’m saying is that if someone will have a respectful conversation that I feel I can usefully engage in, I will engage in it, even if I’m doing it with a feeling of futility. Or I just like fighting, who knows

What extreme political agenda?

We’ve seen it in action on this thread.

I think there is a difference between broadening a discussion and derailing, though?

Am I yet again being accused/insinuated of being a racist? This is exactly what I’m talking about, I think some people are so used to doing this to attempt to shut down discussion that they are no longer aware they’re doing it.

Merry, which extreme political agenda do you think is at work?

That's disgusting.

Yeah true for sure. I think what I mean is sometimes I engage even though I think it’ll lead immediately down the circular rabbit hole of pointlessness quick smart and add to existing pointless arguments happening simultaneously on the thread. But on the face of a single post/reply it’s a reasonable exchange. Maybe it doesn’t matter, I think I might just be sensitive about the ignoring thing!

He may or may not be British now but he is of Asian descent, I made the point that the sort of person who abuses people of colour (aka a racist) does not know any of this. I would have thought you could have assumed that by the fact that I mentioned him in a post about racism.

So while we’re not saying “no,” we are asking you to reflect on what a new thread would be for, and whether it's likely to be constructive. We’d really prefer to encourage a culture of reporting concerns directly, rather than hosting parallel threads critiquing other posters or the site's overall direction, which, by their nature, tend to generate heat rather than light.

The above is the reply from MNHQ about setting up a new thread. My conclusion is that I don't think there is much point in a thread 2 on Site Stuff, because there is little to achieve from it.

And where are these main stream views coming from?

Who is abusing people of colour? Can you post verbatim where anyone has done this?