A couple of nights ago I got hit with a dent from Josh Wood on Identi.ca which I didn't rise to, and simply blocked him. Yesterday it occurred to me that it was a racist comment. I'm a white UK male who speaks English as his native language, I'm not in any of the usual demographics who regularly face racism, so I missed it at the time.
So let's go back to the start. The other night I found myself in an argument with a user (not joshix) on Identi.ca about his constant stream of negative dents. My reaction may have been harsh, I'd just seen enough of the "Tory gits" and "Royal gits" and snapped. The impression I had was of one of the old blokes on the balcony of the Muppets Show who mock whoever is on stage, the difference is, they're funny. I got the impression that this guy wastes his time watching, reading or listening to stuff he knows in advance he has set views against, only to give him the righteous indignation to dent about how they're all gits. Personally, I spend my free time on stuff I expect I'm going to enjoy, although it doesn't always turn out that way.
While an argument was breaking out between me and a few others, I got this lil racist dent from joshix. Just in case he decides to delete it, I took a screengrab of it in context. I thought I'd paste it here too, and lay out why it's racist, and not just a regular jab. "@thistleweb Fuck you. Fuck your mother, fuck you. Fucking fat Scottish cunt identica police."
Before I go on, I should point out that joshix and I have a little history. There was a time when I did follow him, we both subscribe to a lot of the same people, the same groups etc. I gradually noticed his dents were becoming more and more Jerry Springer by the day, like a shick jock wannabie, spewing out dents to intentionally troll and inflame. Eventually I decided to unsubscribe from his feed. Pino allows you to do that from the GUI, it does not allow you to block from the GUI, so I can still get his @replies. I never got one since I unsubscribed, it was just two people ignoring each other, until this racist dent. After it, I went to the browser UI and actually blocked him.
So what I hear you say, this is just another preteen YouTube commenter, why make a big deal of it? There's a difference, first of all Josh can spell, and he knows how to use grammar. Look closely, he knows to start sentences with a capital letter and end them in a full stop. I'm impressed, although arguably the "identica" part should be capitalized too, but that's splitting hairs on what is a grammatically correct if unimaginative racist insult.
So what makes it racist? The use of the word "Scottish" in that context. The conversation has nothing to do with any skin colour, race, nationality, language, gender etc yet the use of the word Scottish targets it at something none of us choose. I'm a Scot, I was born in Scotland. It's not something I chose, nor is it something I'm ashamed of, it's just part of who I am. If he'd left out the word "Scottish" it would not be targeted, and would fall under the typical troll behavior. He didn't. It's worth mentioning at this point that the person I had an issue with, is also a Scot, who he jumped to the defense of, despite not being part of the conversation, nor seemingly capable of restraining his inner Redneck.
Is Josh Wood a racist? I have no idea, what I do know, is that dent is racist. Given his Jerry Springer conversation style at times, I certainly wouldn't bet against it.
This is just one dent, it's tiny in the grand scheme of things, many others suffer much worse, often from multiple sources over the course of their lives, why make a big deal over one comment? I'm not. It's the back story to something more important.
After it occurred to me that it was in fact racist, I asked Identi.ca if it broke their TOS (Terms Of Service) expecting something about "no racial abuse" to be included, only to find that it's not against the TOS of Identi.ca to racially abuse someone. Yes you heard that correct, it's NOT against the Identi.ca rules to racially abuse someone. Apparently they're sticking behind the "well, we copied ours from WordPress, we've checked Twitter and Google, they don't have it either" excuse. This is bullshit.
I did have a look through the TOS before asking them, and not seeing it, I assumed I'd missed it. Every website I know has rules, including all the basic pointers, one of which ALWAYS includes "no racial abuse". They all have various ways of warning, or penalizing those who break the rules, they also have varying levels of applying the rules. The message from Identi.ca seems to be "O' come all ye racists, you'll find a happy home here".
No site can anticipate all of the actions of it's users, which is why discretion is a major part of administering. In this again they seem to prefer hiding behind the "well, there's nothing in the rules saying they can't, so just block them" bullshit excuse.
Perhaps Identi.ca just want user numbers, so they don't really want to turn away anything that makes them look bigger than they are, it's how other sites like Facebook and WordPress work. They make you jump through hoops to get your account deleted, because even dormant counts as a user. Given the woeful inaction to deal with spammers this would also add up. People volunteer their time and effort to report spammers to be rewarded, in this case it's the feeling that they're actually helping and that their reports are helping clear out the spammers. Increasingly the people who do that are questioning why they bother, when spammers links are still proudly displayed, giving other spammers the impression "ooooh, this place doesn't delete links, SUCKERS!".
Unless things change at Identi.ca, they welcome both spammers and racists. I wonder what other dregs of humanity they also welcome to help peak the numbers? Perhaps they should mount an advertising campaign in the Vatican; pedophiles need to talk too, if it's all about the numbers.
If you liked this post, buy me a coffee
As a supporter of Creative Commons, the contents of this site are licensed under a Creative Commons CC-By-SA 3.0 Unported license. This means you're allowed to copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work under certain conditions.
- Attribution - You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
- Share Alike - If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
Related Blog Posts
- The Day Identica Groups Became Annoying
- Dentiquette
- Twidge, Shorten URL & Mustard
- Killing The Gwibber Monkey
- After Some Reflection
- I'm Getting Sick Of The GNU People On Identi.ca
- Online Sphere Of Influence
- Is This The Beginning Of The End For Identica?
- Easy & Effective Spammer Reporting On Identi.ca
- Twitter's Policy Changes Don't Add Up
Comments
Seriously?
People need to get over themselves. This is the Internet, you need a thick skin to live here every day. That's just the way it is, has ever been and will ever be. I can understand if you felt offended by that comment and you have every right to block Josh, but writing such a long blog post about it? Link bait, much? Do you write a two page note everytime someone insults you IRL too? What do you do if someone insults you walking down the street because they don't like your hair? Do you live such a sheltered life that this never happens to you?
I mean, by the Old Ones, get a grip. You should visit Germany one of these days and take part in a counter-demo when the neonazis are out in force again to see what *real* racism looks like. Try to put things in the right perspective...
Perspective
I agree, it's a long post about a single comment. As I said, I'm in a variety of demographics that mean I'm lucky not to be on the recieving end of racism, this is the first time in fact. Is it worth a long post over one comment? No. That was only part of it, the main part of the post is about a site like Identica NOT having anything in their TOS about racist abuse. I'd never have noticed that, and assumed it was there until this incident.
Some incidents IRL as well as online trigger blog posts, but feel free to look through my past posts to see how often I do something like this. As far as I was concerned Josh and I were swimming in the same pools happily ignoring each other, it was not a problem. You're right about "just block him". I have done, I did it straight after that comment. I didn't think I had to until he chose to make that comment. As for "it's clearly humour", I don't agree. It's still no problem, I just wanted to make sure it was recorded.
What I did hope to achieve is for someone to spot what I did in the TOS, and address it. Not for me, I suspect that this comment was pretty much a one off in terms of racism aimed at me, but for people who are really affected by it. If this post gets some traction to help nudge Identi.ca towards that, then it was worth every word. I hate racism, I never expected to be writing this post a few days ago but hey, sometimes the muse strikes with an ill considered dent.
Some folk might think it's
Some folk might think it's racist to mention someones nationality in an insult. I think that's retarded.
Racist is my sister getting shunned from sitting with the other nurses at work because she's white. Racist is me being refused service in a pizza shop and a pub in Perth because they don't want "the likes of us".
Your point about the TOC is another matter and I couldn't care less. Personally I like a place that lets things be and doesn't over react to everything. I've been jumped on in a similar way to this for telling a sick joke (ok, very sick) and it annoyed me greatly.
I will tell you one thing for nothing. The screen grab is not required, I don't know much about Josh but I'm as certain as I can be he's no pansy & he's not going to delete that post. Unless of course he reads this, then he might do it just to make me look stupid.
To sum. Don't be so negative :P
See what I did, I went back to the very begining. I is clever I.
Context
Context is key here. I agree, mentioning someones nationality is not an insult. It might be "humour", I didn't intepret it as such.
No, it certainly isn't humour
No, it certainly isn't humour. It's a word in an insult. It's filler.
I called someone an arrogant skinny bastard once. I believe another occasion I went for fucking self-righteous slap-head twat. Another would be Stupid Mancunian moron.
My point is, though the phrase is an attack the words 'slap-head' and 'skinny' are nothing but descriptive filler. When these words are substituted for nationalities, religions, race it is seen as taboo because real discrimination exists towards those things.
Though people who are racist will no doubt use such phrases this should not infer the opposite that all people who use such phrases are racist.
The point of this post seems to be the Identica TOC. If this is the case you have made an error, in my opinion, in bringing up your quarrel with Josh. The point is bogged down in the original argument that is now resurrected.
Read carefully
At no time did I say Josh was racist, I explicitly made that clear that I didn't know if he was. My point was that the comment itself was.
And my point was that the
And my point was that the comment itself wasn't.
This is not a flame
I have already said elsewhere that I made an error in this outburst. I was more than in the wrong by definition and by effect.
First, the message was simply abusive, and wrong on that count. Remembering the old saw about sticks and stones vs words, the second reason it was wrong may be as important: I assumed a fight on behalf of a 3rd party, illegitimately. No one asked for my help and, certainly, no one was helped by what I did. It's there that your repeated accusations of that pet Internet offense, "trolling", hold most true. That is to my discredit, certainly, but I do not agree with your measurement of the scale.
I do not accept your accusation of racism. I'm not sure I entirely understand it. This issue is so rightly sensitive that I feel nearly checked; that as much as outright apology is required, it also seems you may have slowly, deliberately chosen the path of greatest possible derived offense.
That's potentially inflammatory, so I will try to explain. Far from saying you are lying, I think my unwarranted retaliation was so severe that you have grounds to attack me. I've certainly given you those grounds. Which brings me to the inevitable admission that I ought to have elided the entire message, not just one national identifier -- as if one part of the thing were worse than another. It is an identifier. e.g., Robert Burns was Scottish. It is not to my previous knowledge a baiting epithet or a slur, which may be more than can be said for, say, "redneck". It was certainly not a denial of your abilities, an accusation of congenital nefariousness, or a threat. In the foul context where I placed it, however, there's no way to claim any part of the whole was intended for any purpose but to hurt and to anger. But of all those words, it can seem that you chose the only one bearing any chance of passing for innocuous in a lenient interpretation.
I continue to think, while in no way claiming it as a justification, that you rush to wield a kind of bludgeon of personal censorship in cases that don't warrant it. This is not one of those cases, but it did arise in their wake. The tools to never see nor hear of me were already at your disposal. You take pains above to explain that you had mis- or dis-used them. In pointing that out, I obviously admit that just as much is true for me. In fact I might contend the same general principle in regard to spam, an occasional annoyance which seems an underweight and maybe even cynical pairing with the charges of grievous injury at the cruel hand of foul racism immediately preceding it in your post.
That's why I think it is not fair to paint with a broad brush the community or the management of the service as responsible, as somehow "welcoming" of truly threatening or materially damaging abuse, or even as excessively permissive. If free speech --as a value, not as a specific legal principle or precedent-- exists, it will be abused from time to time by excess and even by accident. I abused it, and apologize. But, if real bigotry is to be struggled against, certainly people of fundamentally the same race can't trivialize allegations of the offense for the purpose of escalating their quibbles.
I am rightly vulnerable to assertions of rationalization or justification; A fair mind must admit it will be proper skepticism. I don't offer a defense, but an apology. Nevertheless I take exception to the distinction of a single adjective in an accusation that I fear you have loosed, with admitted delay, more for its bark than for its bite. I further suspect that even network admins have better things to do than attend to our unfortunate slapfight, and that's what I both object to and apologize for most of all.
One more thing:
"Is Josh Wood a racist? I have no idea, what I do know, is that dent is racist. Given his Jerry Springer conversation style at times, I certainly wouldn't bet against it."
You seem to argue in this particular sentence that:
Racism is dumb. All racists are dumb. Therefore, all dumb people are racists. Without even contending either of the predicates, the conclusion doesn't hold. To illustrate:
"Is George Stuckfuzzel a rapist? I have no idea. Given his Bay City Rollers conversation style at times, I certainly wouldn't bet against it."
Seems unfair doesn't it?
In other words, I may be dumb, but…
Thanks
I should have been clearer in the original post to be fair. The comment you made could be interpreted as racist, regardless of it's intended interpretation. That said, I didn't claim any great racist offense from it. As I said, I didn't even notice that interpretation until the following day. It did lead me to explore the Identi.ca TOS, and bring it up with the admins to clarify what I was reading. Your dent led to that discovery.
I am one of many who are getting sick of the apparent lack of effective action taken against spammers. I saw the lack of a racist abuse part on the TOS as an extra point to build the pressure onto Identi.ca to properly address both issues.
I know a single dent is a far cry from a campaign of abuse, I saw a gap and wanted to ensure it was closed so that there's something in place for people who do get racial abuse to have recourse. They need something to point to, that forces administrators to act. Discretion is a key tool here, but that needs to be given claws, with which to act, if it's deemed necessary. Every website I've seen, that I've looked at the TOS, there's a whole list of standard things covered. I was stunned that Identi.ca didn't. I was also incensed that they were hiding behind the "well, Google and Twitter don't either" excuse, for not including it.
I also accept that your contributions to conversations are not always inflammatory, I just saw one too many that seemed to be intentionally inflammatory. We can all lash out, I've done it myself. I don't intend to troll conversations, but have been drawn into that role. I do try to be alert to it, and pull out when I sense it. I'm not always successful, we're all human. I accept the scale point.
As I pointed out in another comment, context is king. I have no problems with language, or jibes back and forth. I've watched football (soccer) games between Scotland and England (HUGE rivalry) with a mixed crowd, fans from both countries, where the digs go back and forth, I love it. That's all good natured, and intended to be a laugh. As you've stated and apologized for, your comment was intended to be an insult. That changes the context.
Most of the conversations we have online, with people we see mostly as text on a screen are just that. We will often have conversations back and forth for years without ever meeting the person in real life. Plenty of people are either intentionally or subliminally different online, perhaps more confident, more outgoing, more aggressive, more flirty etc. I try to be the same online as in real life, so people I get on with online I'll very likely get on with in person, just as people who don't like me online, won't like me in person either. People can also be different with different audiences too, this is only natural, plenty people swear a lot, but as soon as they're at work, they switch into work mode, where swearing is a definite no-no. I fully accept you stepped out of line in that one comment, my point was that I don't know you, I don't know where your line is in person, or whether that was an unguarded slip. To be honest it was a bit of a dig, for that I apologize.
I had been drinking the night this broke out, certainly not to the point where I didn't know what I was doing or saying, I never get to that state. I had no intention of starting or taking part in any argument with anyone over anything. The Royal comments which sparked me off, were more the straw that broke the camels back. It was the last in a seemingly endless line of negative dents. Life is too short to be negative about everything, when you see a constant stream of it, it has an effect. Of course you can simply ignore or block a user, sometimes they don't realize how they come across unless someone points it out to them.
When you commented, I'd forgotten you existed, and had no intention of getting into another argument, the current one was already spinning out of control at the time.
I also read some (well, a random handful) of your dents in the aftermath of this post as "in context" replies to and from others, but since you took the time and effort to post here to put your side, I accept your sincere apologies.
Add new comment