Online Etiquette

Online culture today is can be a very strange thing. There are people who will expect you to respect them and their views, but who nonetheless are very ready to dish out insults and abuse when it suits them. People who have not learned that if you are willing to give it, be willing to take it, or that if you want respect and to be taken seriously, then give respect and take others seriously. At the other end of the scale, we have those who are all too willing to jump on the slightest thing someone else posts, even if it does not affect them personally, and accuse them of bigotry. The latter remind me of the 1980s, when I ran with an “alternative” crowd; every day was a verbal minefield, of watching every word you said, for fear of being accused of some bigotry or another.  At times I would purposely wind them up by saying things like "That sepearates the men from the boys." (considered sexist), or "I wouldn't want to be blackballed." (considered racist, but which in fact originates from Freemasonry)

Extremes are always odious, and help no-one. The answers, as ever, lie somewhere in-between. I don't for one moment pretend to have all the answers, but I do follow some sort of code of conduct for posting online, of which these are my thoughts upon.

Freedom of Speech and Expression

There is an increasing tendency today for some people, when called out on something they have posted which is clearly offensive and/or insulting to cry out “Freedom of speech”, or accuse their critic of attempting to suppress or censor them. Such people seem to think that insulting behaviour comes under freedom of speech and expression. It does not. Go to the rules on any online community and you will find there are rules and guidelines involving online behaviour, and these include restrictions upon insulting behaviour. In some cases, if severe enough, these can involve the law becoming involved, when online behaviour crosses over into hate speech, cyber bullying, and / or threatening behaviour.

If I come out with something you find offensive, unless I've directly insulted you, that does not give you carte blanche to respond with insults upon my person or character. What is more, when anyone responds to a point someone makes with insults, it merely makes the latter person look childish and foolish, and be extension, they have already lost the debate.

I will recount a prime example of this, and I am not afraid to name and shame the individual concerned either. A Polish woman settling in Rosemarkie, Grampian, once reported to a group I am in that her children had told her that in the non-denominational state school they attended, they had been forced to pray before school dinners; basically being forced to say grace. As the woman concerned is an atheist, she objected strongly to this. Into the Facebook debate waded the Reverend David A Robertson, now the Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, who lambasted the woman and complained of “white settlers” coming into “his” Highland culture and trying to impose their ways upon others. The term “white settler” in this context is in fact a hate speech term for non-Highlanders settling in the Scottish Highlands, which Grampian Police have indeed charged people for in the past. As I say, I'm not afraid to name and shame, for despite me pointing out just how offensive the term is, DAR - as he is commonly known, refused to apologise for the term and remains unrepentant for it to this day.

Were this not enough, Rosemarkie is not even considered within the Highland Boundary, and DAR, who hails from the Isle of Lewis, was writing from Dundee, central Scotland, where he is more than happy to try and impose his parochial Free Kirk views on the whole of Scotland. But then, he is a prime example of one who reverts to insults in online posts, often referring to secularists as “militant” and / or “fundamentalist” atheists.

At the other end of the spectrum, if someone makes a post which is satirical, but which those affects may find offensive, then I would argue that is fair comment. The attack upon the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo for cartoons they had posted was a horrendous act of terror, for no more than cartoons. A few years ago Draw Mohammed Day used to be quite a big event, and while I never took part myself, considering it somewhat childish, I nonetheless respected the right to do so of those who did take part. What happened to Draw Mohammed Day? You never hear of it nowadays. Could it be that the cartoonists have brow-beaten into submission? If so, then freedom of speech and expression has indeed been curtailed. And why? Goodness knows there are plenty humorous depictions of the Judeo-Christian God and Jesus online, so why not Mohammed. Some cartoonists do indeed make satirical comments upon this odious censorship. The YouTube atheist, DarkMatter 2525 includes in his cartoons a figure covered in blacked-out boxes with the word “censored” on them, whom he calls “Not Mohammed”.

Satire, and in particular satirical cartoons, have long been a tool with which to comment upon injustice. Indeed, the popular UK magazine Private Eye has been using satire to attack all sorts of wrongs since the 1960s. If we lose the freedom to use satire online, then we lose something very valuable indeed. I would emphasise however that it needs to be satire for a cartoon – or a meme - on religious or political debates to be funny or even valid. Simply attacking someone's faith for the sake of attacking their faith is simply not on.

But mainly freedom of speech does not give you the right to insult others.  As Oliver Wendell Holmes said "My right to swing my fists ends where the other man's nose begins."

Godwin's Law

I get so very angry nowadays when at the least mention of Hitler and the Nazis online, there will be someone who will accuse you of Godwin's Law. Such people seem to think that Godwin's Law means you can never mention Hitler and the Nazis, the inference being that if you do so, you have just lost the argument. WRONG!

I wonder if those who shout loudest even know the true meaning of “Godwin's Law”?

The 'rule' is so called because it was first stated by US attorney and author, Mike Godwin, in 1990, that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.”

Have you got that? The comparison with Hitler / Nazis merely becomes more probable the longer a debate continues. It does not say that anyone mentioning such is immediately guilty of Godwin's Law. I have in the past posted a pic of the UK Prime Minister alongside Adolf Hitler, comparing their policies, and have been accused of “Godwin's Law”. Utter rubbish.

The Nazis were one of the most brutal regimes, under one of the most insidious dictators this world has ever known. If one sees an apparent parallel between the policies of any political leader or organisation and those of Hitler and the Nazis, not only it is relevant for them to comment upon that parallel, given that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it, I would suggest that it is wholly necessary that they do so.

Here is a very good example of how those crying “Godwin's Law” can affect politics adversely. In a meme going around on Facebook, Tom Moe, a US Air Force veteran and former Vietnam POW, allegedly said the following;

“You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims must register with the government, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says he's going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says it is okay to rough up Black protesters, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you're not one. But think about this. If he keeps going and actually becomes president, he might just get around to you, and you better hope that there's someone left to help you.”

Now, I don't know if Tom Moe even exists, or if he does, if he actually said that. The quote may well be apocryphal. However, whether he did or not, compare the above to this;

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Those were the words of Martin Niemöller, a German Lutheran pastor, who was a brave and outspoken critic of the Nazi regime, who spent the war in Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps.

Could it be that Tom Moe, or whoever wrote his quote, was afraid to quote Niemöller in case they were accused of Godwin's Law? Not certain, but it is a possibility.

Playing the Person and not the Ball

It never ceases to amaze me how when someone has politics or other views which some may disagree with, instead of criticising that person, they will automatically attack the individual for some personal attribute.

One of the more depressing examples of this was quite recently, when it was reported that Caitlyn Jenner wanted to be Ted Cruz's spokesperson on transgender issues. For those who have been living under a rock, Caitlyn Jenner was formerly Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner, who in 2014 underwent gender reassignment surgery to transition to a woman. Whatever the truth of the Ted Cruz story, when this hit Facebook, there were despicable comments, referring to her as her 'dead name', calling her “he”, “s/he”, and even “it”, as well as 'jokes' about her gender and sexual preferences.

For my money Caitlyn Jenner is an arsehole. Too full of herself for me to ever like her, and I certainly do not agree with her politics. I do however respect her as a woman, and the extremely brave step that someone so much in the public eye had the courage to come out publicly as transgender, and to transition, knowing full well what the public backlash would be. You will notice the pronouns I am using; “she” and “her”. Caitlyn Jenner does not think she is a woman, she is a woman. If there are any have a problem with understanding that, then consider how offended you would be if you were misgendered.

Sometimes, just sometimes, however, people can be just fantastic. Here in Scotland, the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party, Ruth Davison, is openly lesbian. I intensely dislike the woman's politics, and I despise her uncaring, condescending, elitist arrogance. Obviously as I am a supporter of Scottish independence, and Ruth is a unionist, we are always going to disagree upon that. However, when some moron, claiming to be a fellow Scots Nat, attacked Ruth on Twitter, making deeply personal and insulting references to her sexuality, a whole bunch of Scots Nats, myself included, laid into the guy in question, deriding him for making personal homophobic attacks. He was absolutely bombarded with criticisms from people who whiles they wholly disagreed with Ruth Davison, disagreed even more with homophobic pond life. In the end, Ruth Davidson herself posted “I feel I have just been treated with chivalry.” Ruth, you are very welcome. Nobody deserves that.

Turning Common Terms into Insults

I hate the words retard and retarded. I hate them even more in the context of the internet. People, even those who tend to be socially and politically astute, have taken a word which describes a disability, and turned it into a common insult. Do those who use the term even realise just what they are doing?

The Oxford English Dictionary gives this definition for the noun, “retard”;

A person who has a mental disability (often used as a general term of abuse).

Again, it is playing the person and not the ball, and in doing so, the user abuses a term used to describe mental disability. You use it, the mentally disabled pay.

Is this important? Consider that the UK tabloid newspaper (I use the term loosely) once used the headline “You Spastics!”. The Spastics Society of Scotland responded by running an advertising campaign with a photograph of that very headline, and with the slogan “2 million newspapers sold at our expense”. That is precisely what the user does when they use the terms 'retard' or 'retarded'; they miscall someone at the expense of some of the most vulnerable in society. This became such an issue in the UK that the term 'spastic' is no longer used, because of the negative connotations it now carries.

But it need not be a disability to become a term of abuse. How often do you see comments online such as “Gay!” or “That is so gay!”? Users commonly use it to abuse others, and LGBT+ people suffer as a consequence, as “gay” becomes synonymous with “inferior”. So if they are inferior, then there can't be anything wrong in attacking the LGBT+ community, right? Would Ruth Davison have been abused by a homophobe if attacks on LGBT+ people were not seen as 'valid'? I doubt it. But then, Ruth can count herself lucky. She only suffered online abuse and was not subjected to a beating, as many LGBT+ people suffer on a daily basis, some even being killed, or driven to suicide.

Insulting Behaviour on others Timelines

I have at times been accused of not being willing to what others have to say. Poppycock. If I post things on my own personal Facebook timeline which others may object to, I will allow them their say, so long as it is valid and respectful.

The moment it crosses the line into abuse however, that is a no-no. If that abuse is directed towards me personally, then obviously that's a no-go. I don't do that to others, I likewise do not expect it to be done to me. If the abuse is directed at others, and is bigoted, then that likewise is a no-no. I intensely dislike bigotry in any way, shape, or form, and while others may like to voice that on their own timelines and public debates, they do not get to do so on my timeline.

In the end, if someone publicly abuses me, or shows bigotry towards others on my Facebook timeline, then I will remove them from friends, immediately and permanently.

My timeline is just that; MINE. It is not a public debating forum, and it is not a democracy. It is MY domain, and I am fucking GOD there.

Grammar Nazis

I have to admit to being guilty of this myself at times. I have an excellent command of English, to the point I utterly hate to see the language abused. I have been known to comment on poor spelling and grammar, and one day I paid the price for that.

In an atheist Facebook group, one of my arguments was refuted by someone with atrocious spelling and grammar, and I commented that he could argue with me once he had command of the English language. The said person commented back, informing me that he was in fact dyslexic. I tell you, I am only a little guy of 5' 2”, but that day I felt about 3 inches tall. I was very apologetic, and I have been wary of commenting upon the spelling and grammar ever since.

I'm not saying I no longer do so, but when I do, it will be with someone whom I know has a good command of English, and can do better. Even then, nine times out of ten, I shall only say it in jest. But when you do come across someone with a poor command of English, think that they may well be dyslexic, or dyspraxic, or merely does not have English as a first language.

Social Justice Warriors

Okay, I know I may sound like a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) myself by now, but I can promise you, I am far from it.

SJWs have a habit of thinking they are standing up for a cause or minority even if it does not directly affect them personally, and get all butthurt when others disagree with them, or say something they find offensive to their cause. Back in the 1980s people like this were standing on street corners selling the Socialist Worker, today they are all over the internet. But whichever the generation, they appear to have one thing in common; they tend to be middle-class poor little rich kids, looking out for this week's “cause” before moving onto another next week.

Frankly people like that are a pain in the butt. These are the ones who will jump on every little word you say, accusing you of being misogynist, misandric, sexist, racist, ableist, Islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic, or any other form of bigotry, real or imagined. I kid you not, I once accused of being “speciesist”. I replied “If you mean that I consider human life to be more important than animal life, then you're damned right I am speciesist. I don't give a fuck if one or one hundred monkeys die to save a human life. The human life must always take precedence.” Oh, and anyone who disagrees with that, suck it up, because I don't care about your opinions on the subject, or those of me, and I'm even less interested in hearing them.

SJWs also tend to be those people who will not only not listen to counter arguments but support those they stand up for to have a 'safe zone' where they and there supporters may speak. How is that a debate? It is not a debate – it is preaching.

There was a great deal of this on YouTube a few months back, where there were radical feminist SJWs, including men (aka “Pussy-Whipped” - yep, I went there) taking a stance against the “men's rights movement”. Now, I am not for a moment a supporter of the Men's Rights Movement; it soon attracted a bunch of misogynist insulting troglodytes. They do however make a few good points, such as in custody battles, mothers – even if unsuitable – tend to be given children more often than fathers, women in prisons tend to serve more lenient sentences for men who have committed the same crimes, and women graduates on average earn more than male graduates. Whenever anyone voiced these truths, they found themselves blocked by the SJWs, or worse still, had their YouTube channels restricted or even closed down by SJWs filing false DMCA notices.

For fuck's sake, how childish can you get. But then, SJWs have ever been the ones to close down debates by throwing insults, character assassination, speaking or even shouting over an opponent (one of George Galloway's favourite tactics), and even resorting to threats, and occasionally actual violence. Doubt the latter? I was once a steward on a rally for peace in London. On the way down there, a bunch of members of the Socialist Worker's Party beat the crap out of a guy in Carlisle Services, purely because he disagreed with their politics. Some socialists!

Conclusion

Social media is a hotbed of debate, and quite often can and does become extremely heated, causing people to sometimes lose the place. And trust me, I have my moments and am certainly no saint in that estimation. But I do at least try to consider others, which is what I reckon all of us should do.

Before you make that comment which may insult or offend, think on who you are offending, and just how much doing so will actually help you. It may make you feel good at the time, but really it is a pyrrhic victory. Do you honestly think that attacking others will change their mind? I don't know about you, the reader, but when anyone personally attacks me, it only causes me to be all the more determined and to dig my heels in. Reasoned debate alone can change minds. Being an ass just makes you and ass, and causes your opponent to be even more of an ass.

And think on when you comment upon others. You have not lived their lives nor had their experiences, just as they have not had your life experiences. None then is in any place to judge too harshly.

I personally prefer to live by my favourite maxim;

Before you judge anyone, try walking a mile in their shoes. That way when you do judge them, you'll be a mile away – and you'll have their shoes.