• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How Racist are Internet Users?

Puppycow said:
Internet users in aggregate are probably neither more nor less racist than the general population but they are (1) anonymous and (2) racists are probably more attracted to websites that mirror their own world views and hence tend to concentrate at such sites.
Click to expand...

And a good many of the racist posts on the Net are probably by Trolls...just stirring up trouble because that is how they get their jollies.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
The great advantage of an Internet forum is that you don't risk getting a punch in the nose for saying something offensive.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that people are more likely to make racist comments on an internet forum.
Click to expand...

I think that's exactly why people make more racist comments.

I'm gonna go with a personal example, not good statistical evidence, but just to make my point.

I got hit on a lot by some Vietnamese dude on Facebook. I was being friendly and taking the compliment, but then the question came up as to why he was flirting so much to the point that it seemed socially awkward. And he explained to me that in his social circle, him coming out is very taboo so he tends to overindulge online and is actually very shy in real life.

If something is very taboo in your real life and you're given an outlet, some people tend to overindulge even if it is out of character for them and not representative of their personality.
 
andyandy said:
Something I've wondered for a while - how representative (or unrepresentative) are message board contributors? Previously in the old days (ie about 10 years ago....) message boards seemed disproportionately populated by angry young men, but with the spread of the internet is that generalisation still true?

For example, the Daily Mail (the world's most read newspaper) often has a strong racist following contributing to the message boards. The Daily Telegraph's boards resemble a StormFront rally. But where are these people coming from? How prevalent is racism when people can hide behind internet anonymity? Or are racist people (for some reason) simply more likely to post on the internet than other people?

Discuss :)
Click to expand...

Last August they had the Planet of the Apes riots. What do you expect?
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_riots
 
Brattus said:
It all comes down to your definition of racism.
If a white person mentions the color black in any context within earshot of any black person then not only is that white person regarded as racist but people need to be fired from their jobs, boycotts need to be staged and congressional meetings must be held.

On the other hand some black entertainers base their entire career on saying racist things about white people.
Not only is that acceptable but those black entertainers make a great living doing it.
There are and were TV sitcoms with all black cast where every other joke was about how racist, stupid, uptight or well off white people are supposed to be.

If racism is not acceptable for some then it should not be acceptable for all.

Creating TV ads that play nation wide featuring how dumb white hillbilly's are is no different than creating a TV ad featuring how all black people love basketball or fried chicken.
Click to expand...

White males are always presented as the dumb ones in a racially mixed ad.
 
Freddy said:
Is a person a racist if they type a racist comment that they don't even believe just to be as offensive as possible? I suppose that depends on how racism is defined, but I wonder how many racist comments can be explained by the Greater Internet F-Wad Theory, rather than being the actual views of the person typing them. But again, I guess it's an open question whether that is enough to make someone a racist even if they don't believe the contents of their offensive comments. I imagine some reasonable people would say that's enough. I'm not really sure either way. And I'm sure many of the commenters who post such things really do mean them. I just think the Greater Internet F-Wad Theory should be considered (and I enjoy linking that cartoon).
Click to expand...

I’m sure the ADL tracks and develops statistics for all the racist comments on the Internet.
 
slingblade said:
I don't think, Freddy, that the issue should be "is the person racist?"

Racism is more about a dominant group, in this case whites, having undue power and influence (THE In-Group) over minority groups (The Out-Groups).

When your group, whatever its composition, is the minority out-group, you very clearly feel the lack of power your group has. I mean, obviously, if you had the power, your group wouldn't be the out-group! It is natural in that case to want to wrest power, of whatever sort, wherever you can take it. If you discover it is permissible for your out-group to mock the powerful and influential In-Group, then isn't it wholly understandable when you do so?

Fat comedians make fun of thin people, but doing so doesn't suddenly make being thin socially unacceptable. In fact, the mockery doesn't really harm the higher social status of thin people in any way.

It doesn't even have to be a case of majority in-group vs. minority out-group. Depending on the nature of the power wielded, a minority can be the dominant In-Group, and discriminate against a majority out-group.

Going back to weight, let's say, for instance, that fat, unhealthy people far outnumber thin, fit people. That they are the majority doesn't appear to give them status or power, does it? In fact, if most of the people in the HR department are thin and fit, you might find that tends to be the kind of person who gets hired, or promoted, at that company, right?

So it's not about whether a person is racist, but rather, whether the person belongs to a group that has power over or dominates other groups.

Even when white TV shows make fun of white out-groups (ignorant rednecks), the out-groups still remain part of the dominant in-group, and still share the power of that in-group over the other out-groups.

In other words, the redneck, no matter how much you make fun of him, will always be white.
The black person, no matter what, will never be white, will never be part of the white in-group.

We know this, because we still use the words to make the color distinction.

So if a person makes a remark that they don't mean to be racist, but it's the sort of remark that just reinforces negative racial stereotypes, and shows clearly there's a power-imbalance, yah, it's pretty much a racist remark. But no, that doesn't mean the person is necessarily racist. If the remark causes harm, though, does it really matter if your intent was consciously racist or not? It has a racial power-imbalance effect, and I'd say that's what actually matters.
Click to expand...

All of the above is theoretical Marxist crap.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
The great advantage of an Internet forum is that you don't risk getting a punch in the nose for saying something offensive.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that people are more likely to make racist comments on an internet forum. I have been in many 'real world' situations where people were letting their racism show, and all I could do about it was bite my tongue. These same people wouldn't have the courage to publish their tirades on the net for all to see.

The good thing about racism on the net is that in most forums you are likely to get called on it. Offensive posts may be removed, and if you persist then you may even get banned from the site. As a result, inveterate racists have to find forums which tolerate their behavior. Thus the bigots tend to collect together in places that nobody else wants to visit.

'Out of sight, out of mind' might be a good way to deal with fringe groups who are trying to promote their cause, but racism isn't confined to just those few nutcases. Unfortunately a large proportion of the 'world at large' also hold residual racist feelings. We need to call it out whenever we see it, and let everybody know that it is unacceptable!
Click to expand...

In other words racism is a no no.
 
I 'spects that taken in it's entirety the % of online racists closely approximates the % of racists in the population at whatever level you wish to discuss. If there is some reason given the extremely widespread use of the internet that someone can come up with to explain why some greater OR lesser number of racists (by %) would use the internet than non-racists I would certainly want to hear it/see it.
 
MaGZ said:
In other words racism is a no no.
Click to expand...

Stupidity of that type should automatically be a no-no among intelligent, civilized people. Obviously, non-civilized, barely functioning trash might well be racist as their intellectual capacity limits them so dramatically.

One of my favorite examples of that is the KKK who are such flipping rectum breathers that their uniform (the little night shirt thing) has a cross shaped target over the forehead and one over the heart - I mean what kind of idiot gives a perfect target to it's enemies that way!!:D:D:D:D:D
 
MaGZ said:
Last August they had the Planet of the Apes riots.
Click to expand...
Well, that's as accurate a statement as I've seen from you. No "they" (not quite sure what you mean, since you're replying to an article about the Daily Mail and the Telegraph) didn't have any "Planet of the Apes riots". Nobody referred to the riots in England by that name, and the supposed reference on that metapedia (what ever that is) page doesn't do so either.
What do you expect?
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_riots
Click to expand...
From you, I don't expect any better.
 
If you don't wish to encourage Daily Mail thinking...
DO NOT LINK TO, OR READ LINKS TO, THE DAILY MAIL.
 
Kahalachan said:
I would say the phenomena is really no different from people being more of a jerk online than usual.
Click to expand...
Back in the day, when I wrote for and edited badly-photocopied TV SF fanzines, after a first meeting, someone remarked that I was, "not as much of a bastard as you appear in print." I should remind myself of that more often....
 
Rat said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't know what the word "Marxist" means, and are just using it as a supposed pejorative.
Click to expand...

I agree, I see it often enough as it is. Ironically (perhaps) the same can be said for how many use the word "nazi"... actually, the term "racist" as well. :rolleyes:
 
Rat said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't know what the word "Marxist" means, and are just using it as a supposed pejorative.
Click to expand...

MaGZ is an open admirer of Hitler and the Third Reich. What do you expect from him, intelligence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom