How Racist are Internet Users?

[andyandy]

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

 

[andyandy]

For example, The Wail is running a piece on John Derbyshire being fired for various racist suggestions.....

all the best rated comments are in his support, all the worst rated are those condemning him....

These are the best rated:

1) The irony is that all the people condemning him for saying these things publicly, practice these things privately.

Rating 603


2) Sadly, he's right. The St. Patrick's Day tourist should have heeded his advice.


3) "The irony is that all the people condemning him for saying these things publicly, practice these things privately. - Edward, Los Angeles, USA, 08/4/2012 " So true! Although, some blacks have no shame on telling their black kids the same in public! And of course, that's OK.

Rating 151

4) The drunken British tourists in Florida should have taken Derbyshire's advice.
Rating 146

5) In our police state one is not permitted to hold, or express an opinion without it threatening one's livelihood. Who would have ever believed our country, once a bastion of democracy, could have sank this low?
Rating 144


6) I see the The Mail is happily reproducing the 'innocent' Trayvon pic. Come on DM, lets have a more recent one from his Twitter account. Where his illiterate gangsta musings are there for all to see along with some charming pics.
Rating 133


7) He's not universally shunned. I don't shun him. The article seems quite sensible to me, and I have read it which is more than these commentators seem to have done. And I just bought his book 'Prime Obsession', and it's very good. Note that his wife is Chinese and his children are half-Chinese.
Rating 130


8) Using the picture of the late Trayvon before he became a 6 foof 2 inch football player is touching. Please send more naive Brtish tourists to America.
Rating 85

9) A lot of what was in the article was simply common sense, however, it is offensive to articulate it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...st-fired-writing-racist-article.html#comments

and anytime the Wail runs a Nazi story (which they seem to be partial to....) the good old fascists get quite a sympathetic hearing....

The Book sounds interesting enough , no harm buying a copy just to see the other point of view . RIP Rudolf Hess . Rating Green Arrows 62

Just goes to show that there are an army of too much time on their hands lunatics out there, who like to pounce on any story like this, make an inflammatory comment get all their mates to like it...red arrowing all others. "RIP Rudolf Hess" Yeah right that has double digit likes and all others have double digit red arrows, sorry but you're not convincing anyone that that reflects true opinion whoever you saddos are. Rating Red Arrows 32

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rding-Nazis-psychiatric-records.html#comments

So, do racists just spend disproportionate time posting on boards? Is it just a crafty use of proxy servers to bump up ratings? Or are more people racist than they would admit in public?

 

[Dancing David]

I would say you would have to do a lot of deliberate work to get a representative sample of readers.

There are those who post and do so for many different reasons. That is very likely to skew the sample.

 

[arthwollipot]

In general, it's only the people who have extreme opinions on something that can be bothered to post about it. How often do you get someone posting saying "meh, I don't really care one way or the other"?

 

[Puppycow]

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.

 

[andyandy]

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.

I'd agree with both points..... however the Daily Mail this is not just some nether-region Neo-Nazi forum, but the biggest newspaper site on the web - so if they congregate at such a site, and that site itself panders to their views, then doesn't that suggest that racism is itself more prevalent than we might like to suppose?

 

[Moss]

It might just suggest that people with racist points of view are more outspoken than moderates on the internet.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Every single internet user, without exception, is at Racism Level 5.

 

[zooterkin]

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?

Both the Fail and the Torygraph have an older readership; in my experience, a lot of older people (60 or 70 plus) are racist, in a very off-hand way (either unaware of the fact, or unapologetic about it), and those prejudices are reinforced by those publications.

 

[Cainkane1]

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

Racists can hide behind a keyboard and say tings they wouldn't say in the real world. There is a lot of racism for instance on youtube especially right now because of the Trayvon Zimmermann incident. The racists post disproportionanty to the rest of the population.

 

[Brattus]

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.

 

[slingblade]

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.

Gross and hasty generalization. I've first-hand personal experience that shows me, at least, this is not so. I don't expect my anecdotal evidence to show you anything, other than that I don't buy your argument. Nothing more.

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.

As a direct result of this, have you discerned any difference in how the dominant ethnic group and/or culture treats whites? Are we whites receiving any negative treatment, for instance, from the dominant ethnic group/culture?

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

That would be true, if racism were defined only as "noticing differences in skin color, and commenting on those differences."

It's just a hair more complicated than that, and by "hair," I mean one the size of a cable some 1000 ft in diameter.

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.

Sure, there's a big difference. If it's white people making fun of the dumb white hillbillies, that's totally different from white people promoting negative non-white stereotypes. I wonder if that difference is appreciable to anyone else?

I have my doubts.

 

[Juniversal]

5) In our police state one is not permitted to hold, or express an opinion without it threatening one's livelihood. Who would have ever believed our country, once a bastion of democracy, could have sank this low?

This commenter is clueless...^ Talk about looking into the past through rose colored glasses.


Not sure if he's talking about the same "bastion of Democracy" that perpetrated slavery? Or the same "bastion of Democracy" that condemned Japanese Americans to internment camps during WW2?


Maybe he's referring to the same "bastion of Democracy" that didn't allow women to vote until the 1920's and had anti-miscegenation laws on the books until the late 1960's?? Methinks this Utopian "bastion of Democracy" never truly existed.

 

[slingblade]

Juniversal, that would be the "Good Old Days" Fallacy. Which, back in my day, we of course never had.

 

[WildCat]

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?

Of course not, they're all 10 years older now.

 

[Freddy]

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).

 

[Juniversal]

Juniversal, that would be the "Good Old Days" Fallacy. Which, back in my day, we of course never had.

That, and I also find it funny that he believes the fact Derbyshire was fired was somehow a violation of his freedom of speech. I never knew that the right to freedom of speech means you are also granted workplace impunity.

 

[sgtbaker]

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).

Oh my goodness that's awesome!

 

[Juniversal]

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).

I think youtube is a haven of "F-Waders" lol. No doubt you'll find F-Waders (better known as "trolls") everywhere (but in greater frequency on certain sites). On an article like this I think people are truly speaking their minds. Btw, I love the pic you linked to lol. Simple but so true.

 

[Freddy]

I think youtube is a haven of "F-Waders" lol. No doubt you'll find F-Waders (better known as "trolls") everywhere (but in greater frequency on certain sites). On an article like this I think people are truly speaking their minds. Btw, I love the pic you linked to lol. Simple but so true.

Oh, I agree regarding this article. Much as I would like to think no one really believes this sort of racist crap, I know better.