Place Names (and Coughing up Fur Balls)

I'm off on Friday morning to Munich, Prague and Cracow, so it's time for a quick blog before my trip.

Yes, I'm going to Cracow: not to Krakow, as my EasyJet ticket would have me believe.  The thing is, you see, this is the spelling of the town in English.  It's Cracowie in French, it's Krakau in German, it's Kraków in Polish - and as far as I'm aware it's "Krakow" only in the language known as EasyJet.

Ever wondered why we have multiple spellings of place names in different languages?  Well it's very simple.  In years gone by merchants or other travellers would visit and find it difficult to pronounce the local variant of the place name.  If the place was significant enough different spellings or versions would occur in different languages.  Cities like Brussels literally have dozens of variants, it being on an international cross-road. 

Kraków (the Polish spelling) is pronounced with a cross between an "u" and an "ooh" like sound in the last vowel because of the accent.  It's a bit like "ooh err missus".  It became easier for English visitors and those talking about the place to adopt their own spelling and pronunciation.   It's pretty hard for an English person to pronounce the German "ü" properly, or indeed to do the German "ch" (just listen to Classic FM presenters trying to say "Bach").  Therefore München becomes Munich in English.  The Italians call it "Monaco" incidentally.  One Monaco does Bier, the other Monaco does Casinos.
 

Brunswick, Germany: how lovely

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and actually quite a lot right with it. These different place names and spellings are usually hundreds of years old.  There's such a charm for me to see something like the above.  English people really genuinely cannot pronounce Braunschweig properly: stick to "Brunswick" and we don't have a problem.  Remember the opening to Browning's wonderful poem?  "Hamelin Town's in Brunswick, by famous Hanover city" - not "Hameln Town's in Braunschweig, by famous Hannover city".  Shame "Brunswick" has virtually vanished from any map or atlas nowadays.

I love reading Koblenz as "Coblentz" (used right up to World War 2) - it gets the "tz" sound of the German "z" across. "C" is a much more used letter in English than K is.  On my Becherovka bottle it says "Original since 1807: Carlsbad, Czech Republic".  I can't pronounce the Czech version Karlovy Vary half as well, nor its neighbouring spa town.  The historic English use of "Marienbad" works a lot better for me, ta, and probably for you too if you don't know your way round Czech's 42 letters and how to pronounce them.  These old fashioned names or spellings seem somehow romantic to me: they conjure up a past that has vanished.

No, I can't even try it either

A Dying Thing

So why is this type of usage dying out?  Well for some cities it's not.  The big ones are still Florence (Firenze), Cologne (Köln), Warsaw (Warszava), Lisbon (Lisboa) etc in English, rather than the local version.  We have an inevitable dumbing down and standardisation going on for the smaller places though.  The UN, quite surprisingly to me, actually has a 50 year old body called UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names) which meets every now and then to discuss standardising place names.  Last time they met in Vienna, which henceforth presumably may only be referred to as "Wien".  (Never mind, by the way, this is pronounced Vee-en with in the local dialect, but Veen (i.e with a dipthong) by other Austrians).  It's a fruitless, impossible, needless task.

Place names can of course be political statements.  Ayers Rock is no longer considered acceptable by many Australians, whereas Uluru is.  This is a sacred place with special meaning for Aboriginals and Ayers Rock has strong colonial undertones.  The Poles call Dantzig (yes, the old English name!) Gdansk.  The Germans call it Danzig.  The use of one variant can definitely be used as a tool to imply ownership and it's not hard to think of examples when this was the case.

Nazi Propaganda from the 1930s

Interestingly, the incredibly politically correct (in this respect) and anxious Germans have not today sought to impose local Polish and Czech name usage on their former towns.  You still see "Posen", "Danzig" and "Breslau" flashing up in German airports on arrival boards.  Just as Britain is not laying claim to the capital of Italy by calling it Rome, rather than Roma, I quite agree with this.  These are simply the German names and their usage should imply nothing more than that.  This is not 1939 and there is no politics behind it.

English usage in this respect is a little different and more nuanced.  Breslau, for example, is the name you will find in history books for the Silesian town right up until 1945; Wrocław refers only and specifically to the post-1945 town with its new Polish population. 

Kate Adie Coughing up Fur Balls

So then finally we come to Kate Adie.  Bless her: she's an amazing, outstanding journalist.  She's been everywhere.  And she STILL effing well insists on calling Bahrain Bar-chhhhhhh-rain.  It literally sounds like she's gagging on a fur ball.  No Katie, it's "bar-rain" in English.  We don't say "Par-eeee" with a nice rolled French R do we?  We say "Paris" when we're speaking our own language.  She did it on Radio 4 recently and as great as she is, this strikes me as the most silly, pretentious, and actually wrong use of language.

Kate Adie on BBC Radio 4, 12 February 2012

When a Place Name Change *might* be a Good Idea

Okay, so we've established that I'm off to Munich, Prague and Cracow.  As long as I'm speaking English, I'm not off to München, Praha and Kraków.  

Whilst I'm in Munich, I may pop over the border into Austria.  There's a charming little village of 104 people there in the middle of the countryside, not too far from Salzburg.  It has a very old place name.  Here's a photo I took of my pal Jörg there on a previous visit.  Click on this link if you want a real giggle about something which actually has absolutely nothing to do with this blog entry at all.  I just wanted to share it :-)

Gay Marriage

Gay marriage has certainly been in the headlines recently with Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, joining a coalition of Christian groups to oppose David Cameron's plans to introduce same-sex marriage by 2015.

Lord Carey has said "This matter is so serious and so important for our nation – we cannot allow this act of cultural and theological vandalism to happen." 

The first thing to say in this debate is that I'm amazed how many straight people assume that gays have the right to marry in this country.  They don't.  They never have had.  Civil partnership was introduced under Tony Blair in 2004.  It accords an almost identical set of rights as marriage to same sex partners who wish to enter into one.  There are a few very minor differences to marriage: civil partners cannot enter a legally binding union in a church and then there's the name.  This is a CP, not a marriage.

What's All The Fuss About Then?

Well in many respects the battle has been won.  Civil Partnerships were passed with remarkably little debate in 2004.  The vast bulk of other European countries (such as France and Germany) also have same-sex civil unions, but there are differences that may mean a same-sex couple doesn't get the same tax treatment as a married couple, or can't adopt etc.  That is not the case in the UK: the rights are identical.  Huzzah.

However, there are two important little points to be made.  The first is a practical one.  When you tick the "Marital Status" box on an application, PR, bank or mortgage form, you do not tick "Married" you tick "Civil Partnered".  Instantly you are disclosing your sexuality to whoever reads the form.  I regard that as a completely irrelevant and intrusive disclosure of fact about someone's private life that, reflecting the prejudices that still exist in Britain in 2012, might lead to discrimination.

Get ready to reveal your sexuality when you reach 3

The second is a rather more fundamental point.  Up until 1967 many States in the USA prevented inter-racial marriages.  The Supreme Court struck this down in the landmark civil rights case Loving v Virginia.  Whites and Blacks were able to marry one another on absolutely equal terms as uni-racial couples.  They had not previously been able to.  Now, imagine instead of this landmark ruling, a separate institution had been created that accorded exactly the same rights as marriage but it had been called "inter-racial partnerships".  What would the fuss have been about?  A black/white mixed couple would have got the same rights.  It's just a different name!  Okay they have to tick a different box on a form, but so what?

Hopefully you get the point.  This is about equality.  As long as society is saying that same-sex couples do not deserve to have their unions accepted on the same terms as straight couples, it is making a distinction between the two unions.  It is the State saying the two institutions are not equal.  It is that simple.

But Marriage is a Traditional Institution!

The "tradition" argument is used time and time again to try to stop things from changing.  There have been many traditions in this country.  Until 1833 Slavery was permitted in the British Empire.  It was tradition and had been the case for ever such a long time.  Until 1882 married women could not own property.  Until 1918 only men could vote in parliamentary elections.  Until 1967 gay sex between consenting adults was punishable with prison.  I could go on and on....  The point is that society changes, develops and moves on.

Nothing would ever change if the argument "it has always been this way" is applied: it is a silly non-argument.  There can of course be very sound reasons not to change something, but simply to say "it's tradition and therefore by definition must not change" is wholly unconvincing.

It is also quite interesting to consider exactly what the tradition of marriage is in history and around the world.   Hinduism and Buddhism for centuries permitted marriages between one man and multiple women.   Judaism allowed them until 1000AD: under the Sephardic tradition this continued longer.  Only one of the 22 Islamic Arab League countries prohibits them today.  It is actually public policy under English private international law broadly to uphold polygamous marriages.

Queen Isabella: Married (13) to King John (33)

European Christian society permitted marriage with pre- or barely pubescent children for centuries for royals and nobles.  The Old Testament details the incestuous marriage of Abraham with his sister Sarah, and that of Lot and his daughters.  Marriage between first cousins was par for the course throughout Europe for centuries and is still permitted in many US States.  Same-sex marriage itself existed as a legal institution in Ancient Rome and was around before the first straight Christian couple wed.  It was only prohibited in Ancient Rome in 342 AD by a clause in the Theodosian Code.  It was practised in China throughout the Ming Period.  I've already touched on marriage until quite recently as being defined as only between people of the same race in some places.  The same applies to defining it only to people of the same religion, which applies today in many societies.

If you are surprised or indeed shocked by some of these examples you are proving the point.  The goal posts of the institution of marriage have changed repeatedly through the centuries, and in all likelihood will continue to do so.  This is how society works: things change to reflect the views and norms of the people at the time.  People once accepted these norms: they do not now.  Homophobic hatred, promoted by the Church, was the norm: it now no longer is.  Society has changed and so will the goalposts of marriage.

What Is Marriage Then?

Like it or not, those trying to "defend traditional marriage", you cannot simplify the argument to the institution always having been a fixed unbending concept of the union of one adult man and one non-related adult woman.  Even today marriage is still not a homogenous concept around the world.  It does not belong to one faith and has not originated from one single faith either.  

Let's also be absolutely clear, Lord Carey, this is not a Christian institution that belongs to bishops to decide on: it belongs to humanity, to us, to society, to people around the world.  It always has done.

What is then the core element that defines marriage, if it is not what the "traditionalists" say?  In my view it is very simply the desire to declare a public bond about your union.  The State allowing a same-sex couple to marry is not about creating a new institution (click here for that rather off the point argument).  It is about extending this long-standing human institution to reflect a truly massive change in how society relates to same-sex unions today.  The very point here is that couples will not say "I'm same-sex married" (as they would if it were a new institution, like CPs) - they will simply say "I'm married".  It is the same institution that has existed for thousands of years - marriage - being extended to a group who could not previously marry.

Even if it were about creating a new institution (the logic of which I refute) that is also irrelevant.  Was allowing women to vote creating a new thing, or extending an old thing?  Actually I doubt too many women went to the poll box saying "I'm going to cast my woman's vote" but who cares: the argument is not relevant to the argument about granting equality regarding men and women being allowed to vote.  Nor is it here.

It's All About Children

It is true that marriage often provides a framework for raising children, but it cannot be argued that marriage only exists to bring up children.  There have been millions of childless marriages.  Lots of children have been appallingly and miserably brought up within the context of marriage; equally children have been successfully raised in all sorts of different situations not involving marriage.  The survival of humanity does not depend on a fixed view of marriage that has in fact varied through history.  

If marriage is only about children, why should society permit infertile couples, those who do not want children, or post-menopausal women to marry?  If permitting them to marry does not weaken the institution of marriage on a macro level, I fail to see how allowing a likely total of 75,000 same sex marriages in this country would do so.

"An Act of Cultural Vandalism"

Lord Carey claims this is an issue "so serious and so important for our nation".  He said in his recent article in the Daily Mail that the Government has "no right to change marriage" and that "marriage will only remain the bedrock of a society if it is between a man and a woman."  He continues that marriage is the "glue that holds this country together" and somberly adds that if the plans go ahead this will be "one of the greatest political power grabs in history."  His article gives us the warning that "such communions would jeopardise the stability of our country."

How is that for hyperbole?  One third of the population has not just been wiped out by the Black Death.  Opposing forces are not meeting in battle during the bloody Civil War.  In a true political power grab, the King has not just broken from Rome, nor has Parliament just signed the death warrant of the Monarch.  The workers are not on General Strike.  This is not June 1940: hundreds of thousands of Nazis are not about to invade.  Yet this change of name from "civil partnership" to "marriage" jeopardises the stability of our great nation.  Stop and think about this claim for a moment.

Note the caption on the Mail photo, taken directly from his article.  Two gay women, who remember can already enter into a civil partnership, dress however they wish, and believe it or not are already allowed to kiss in public, are a "threat" to the stability of our nation... all because the name of their partnership might be changed to "marriage" by means of a democratically voted on, perfectly legal, Act of Parliament.  What an actual drama queen that man is. 

In 2001 The Netherlands became the first nation in the world in modern times to extend marriage to same-sex couples.  Society immediately collapsed.  (Oh, sorry, no it didn't actually).  Next came Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.  None of them is a perfect society: such a thing does not exist.  However many are much further up the list than the UK in terms the UN Human Development Index (Norway is at the very top).

I should love to hear George Carey for one moment define how "traditional marriage" in these countries has been undermined by the extension of marriage to same sex couples.  I would like him to explain exactly what the wider damage to these countries is and how their societies have been destabilised in such a fundamental way.   Cultural vandalism is a phenomenally strong term to use.  I would like him to explain what it means in this context.

I want to know exactly what the harm is to the institution of marriage in allowing same sex couples to call their civil partnerships marriage.  I have yet to hear one cogent argument that can prove any harm, or likelihood of harm.  If your heterosexual marriage is somehow weakened by a gay couple marrying, you have the problem with your relationship.  There is no cost to this name change: the financial rights accorded by marriage are available already to civil partnerships.  

To be absolutely clear: we are talking about the institution of civil marriage here.  500 years after Henry VIII shifted the goalposts for marriage by allowing divorce, the Catholic Church is still not forced to marry divorced couples: they can make their own rules.  There is no suggestion that churches would be forced to open their doors to same-sex partners if it conflicted with their own beliefs (it doesn't, of course with all faiths: see Reform Judaism, the Lutheran Church of Sweden, the Mennonite Church of the Netherlands, Metropolitan Community Churches, Unitarian Universalists etc. etc.).  If you're a divorced Catholic and your church won't accept you, come to a registry office.  The law of this country will allow your union (as long as you're heterosexual, of course.)

Further, as Ben Summerskill put it "If you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex."  Straight people are not somehow being converted here.  No-one is forcing gay people to enter into these unions: it is simply giving gay people the same right as straight people to make that choice or not.

 

Sweden: a morally bankrupt nation on verge of collapse

One thing that the introduction of same-sex marriages in these countries has of course already done is to destroy the "tradition" argument: an 20 year old alive in Holland has spent more than half his or her life with the tradition of same-sex marriage around them.  Many of these countries are our close neighbours: gay marriage is a reality all around us.  Marriage has been redefined once more.  If history is anything to go by, it won't be the last time.

Mimicking a Straight Institution

There are plenty of individual gays who reject the idea of marriage as a failed example that they would not want to copy.  I understand where they are coming from.  As a woman friend on Twitter put it to me "Heterosexuals have undermined the institution of marriage far better than gays ever could".  Why would anyone want to copy it?

I do not have a partner, I do not currently want or expect to get married to another man.  I do want to extend this basic element of equality, though, to those who men and women who do.  As long as kids use the term "gay" as an insult in school playgrounds, as long as gay teenagers self-harm because of their sexuality, as long as society sees homosexuality as something wrong, different, or not equal to heterosexuality, I will take this position.

Why should they be "separate, but equal"? What's wrong with equal?

To go back to my fictional example of "inter-racial partnerships" you can hopefully see why it is simply not good enough to have "marriage" for one group and separately to have "civil partnerships" for another.  It is State defined discrimination and it is wrong.  To equalise the two institutions would send out a huge message.  Names matter; signals matter.  This is a small, but symbolically highly important step on the path to equality.   When kids grow up seeing same-sex people and couples on equal terms society will change.  It is already happening, thank God - despite the best efforts of particular elements within society for decades now to prevent it.

Conclusion

I used to feel quite relaxed about this subject: kinda "meh".  The more I think about it, and the more I see the hysterical utterances of the likes of Lord Carey, as expressed in the Mail and Telegraph, the more irritated I become.  We live in a largely secular country.  The definition of marriage does not belong to a minority group (traditionalist Anglican or Roman Catholic churchgoers and their leaders).

Once again, marriage does not derive from and belong to the Christian Bible, it is not a fixed concept, and it belongs to society to define.  Lord Carey is being perverse when he attacks David Cameron and says law-makers have no right to extend the institution.  It in fact very much belongs to us, society, and not to the bishops.  It is our elected representatives that make laws on our behalf in Britain.  All I can see is spite and prejudice coming from anyone seeking to deny this change.  I have yet to see a cogent argument against it not based on "it's tradition" and "I don't want to give this to you".

A sign of how far our society has changed is the fact that the leader of the Conservative Party is apparently pushing for this harmless, just, and simple change.  I really hope that the pressure of these mean-spirited, hysterical, reactionary groups does not lead him to waiver in this.

Trolls and Tweeting About Politics

You hear a lot about "Trolls" on the Internet.  What exactly are they?  There are various definitions: they invariably centre around someone whose behaviour is intended to cause upset to another online.  At their most extreme they can be someone who post offensive messages on a tribute site to cause grief to a bereaved family.  I've heard of trolls who pretend they are young mothers who spend weeks making friends on things on Mumsnet, only to troll message boards and be offensive.  Hilarious, yeah.

On Twitter my general understanding of a troll (there is also a verb, to troll) is someone who generally you do not follow, but who sees a tweet of yours through a search or a retweet, and who sends you an uninvited message that is either simply offensive, or that is intended to start an argument.  It's not simply someone you disagree with: it's someone who is purposely goading of offending you for the fun of it.  You will often never have seen their avatar or name before.

Why Do We Feed the Trolls?

Trolls are a regular feature of the medium and probably one of the things that upsets people the most.  There is of course a simple mechanism to stop them "don't feed the trolls" - don't engage and/or block them.  Would that it were that simple, however.  First it takes some restraint if you've just been called a "fucking idiot" or similar not to respond.  Secondly, the troll may appear semi-reasonable and you may think you are being drawn into a civilised conversation and want to defend your viewpoint.  After a few exchanges your blood pressure goes up a notch and it takes even more effort just to walk away.  You're drawn in and it rarely ends pleasantly.

Having a Temporary Break from His Keyboard

What Is The Point of Arguing?

A huge strength of Twitter is of course that it facilitates an exchange of ideas.  It is perfectly possible to have a conversation with someone of a different viewpoint that can make you think again about something.  Perhaps this is why we engage: we want to listen.  Perhaps, if we're really honest, it's just because we want to feel we are "right" and convince the other person and anyone else who sees the conversation of our position.  From my experience a genuine reflection and revision of your own position is far more likely to happen when discussing something politely with someone you actually follow and know.  Very rarely, you might meet someone new whom you disagree with, but nonetheless like and respect, and then decide to follow from one of these discussions.

Let's face it, though, someone who has strong personal views that abortion should be illegal, that gays are evil, who describes the European Union as the EUSSR, or that my being vegetarian is a lifestyle choice that makes me "an economic burden" (oh yes, I was told this for real over the course of 3 hours one evening recently) is not going to be able to convince me of their viewpoint.  Nor am I going to be able to influence them of my diametrically opposed opinion.  What *is* the point, unless the act of arguing from your keyboard makes you feel happy about yourself?

Personal Abuse

My last blog was a set of observations on what happens when a celebrity dies.  It led to accusations that I was trying to censor people, lecture them, was being authoritarian, and these lovely unsolicited personal messages:

From someone I'd not spoken to before

From someone I blocked 9 months ago

Why do people send stuff like this?  More importantly, why can't they get their syntax and grammar correct (at least in the case of the first one)?  Why don't they have to courage to put their faces on their avatars?  These two are in fact members of a special little group of ghoulish right wingers and libertarians who always hide behind faceless anonymous profiles, who make lots of noise on Twitter, and who are quite well known for their unpleasant online behaviour.  I'm still amazed to see people I know and like corresponding with the likes of them.

I've also had the head-ghoul, @Old_Holborn message me with the type of thing below.  This isn't trolling, it's just sending pretty grotesque personal homophobic abuse.  If I see anyone RTing the man I'm quite likely to unfollow them as a result.  Why am I in effect naming and shaming these people?  Do I have an axe to grind?  Yes, I guess I do.  I don't see why these people who have sent me abuse in public should not be named here for others to see so they can make their own judgements and steer clear of them if they wish.

From Someone Who is Quite Sick

On a philosophical level, I don't believe there's such a thing as inherently nasty or evil people: only people who in some situations behave in a bad way.  I'm sure these guys have friends and family to whom they are pleasant, and often no doubt loving.  All I know is that I've experienced them being pretty vile to me and to others, and it's not what I come on Twitter for.  I'm able to shake it off better than some I know: if they caught the attention of a few of my friends I know they would leave the medium for good.  They can create a stink that lasts months.  I hope they feel good about doing this.

Politics

Now we come to politics.  I used to enjoy tweeting about politics on Twitter.  One of the things I love about Twitter is the flow of news, current affairs and the comments and reactions of an intelligent, engaged group of people I've found on here.  I barely do it now for the reasons set out in this blog.

I have found that my enjoyment of Twitter has in some ways had an inverse relationship to the number of my followers.  The more people who follow you, the more an RT will reach the likes of someone who wants to pick a fight.  It's amazing that tweeting about being vegetarian will do this, or making some simple observations about the death of a celebrity.  I really don't know how people with really large numbers of followers cope: I saw Sally Bercow tweet "Is it odd that when I hear an Amy Winehouse song I still feel sad?" and just watched the abuse pouring in at her.  No wonder she doesn't seem to tweet half as much as she used to.  Get into party politics and just wait for the really argumentative reactions.  It's exhausting.

I guess I should man up, just ignore the crap, and say what I want to.  I've chosen to shut up instead, because I've found a group of people to follow whom I largely agree with on politics, and prefer to listen to their reactions and discuss them with them one on one, rather than tweet openly in my timeline.  There's less chance of an RT and hostile arguments that way.  If Twitter is about encouraging free speech and open discussion, then this is a bit of a sad indictment of the way the medium can go.  I do have stuff to say about current affairs: instead weariness with the arguments has led me to tweet about my dog, my socks, and what I'm having for breakfast. Great :S

Troll Guidelines

To conclude, and in the true spirit of lecturing people, being authoritarian, and being sanctimonious (thanks again guys!), here are some suggestions I have on the subject of Trolls.  I shall endeavour to apply them myself:

1)  If you don't want a lot of potential grief, simply don't engage with someone you don't know, who has sent you an unsolicited tweet disagreeing with you.  It will very likely, unless you have super-human control and perception in knowing when to get out of the conversation before it heads to aggression, end up in your wasting an evening arguing, and ending up upset or angry.  You will convince them of nothing.  You may feel "right" at the end of it.  So what? Do NOT feed the trolls.

2) Trolling, at least in its mild manifestation, is often a question of perception according to where you are sitting.  All the trolls I know are right-wingers.  I'm sure there are Tories out there who know a whole bunch of lefty trolls.  The same people who behave reasonably to me may pick fights and behave very differently with others.  Think about whether a response of yours to someone you don't know could be seen as "trolling".  Honestly, why are you sending the message?  To be mischievous, to pick a fight?

I'm not above admitting that I've done it on occasion, not that I'm proud of it.  I sent a tweet to a random Christian this week who was being homophobic to some friends, who went on to call me a "liar" and rather bizarrely told me to "get a job".  I ended up sending a deliberately offensive tweet as as result, when really I shouldn't have got involved.  They could have blocked this person themselves if they were upset and are really quite able to look after themselves.  Apart from the utter dickheads I've mentioned above, I'm sure no one would revel in the description of being called a troll.  Don't inadvertently do anything to deserve the label yourself.

3) To put 2. in a nutshell, the best tweet I read all week was from @Yorkdid.  I think he's 18 or 19.  I understand it might not be original, but who cares.  It is brilliant advice and I'd never heard it before formulated like this.  It simply said the following:

There's a real person reading your tweet or message.  Put simply, just run anything you're about to send past this simple test: how would I feel to receive this myself?  Rocket science it is not.

4)  Put the trolling in context.  I follow 1100 people.  I must have interacted with well over 5000 since I've been on Twitter.  I've sent over 60,000 tweets and have probably received at least 20,000 @ mentions, given how much I interact.  Of these around exchanges maybe 50, tops, have been nasty, aggressive and have stuck in my head.  That's 0.25%.  I actively dislike and seek to avoid perhaps 10 people of the 5000 tweeple I've spoken to.  That's 0.2%.

It is so easy to get upset and to forget about all the "good guys" and what makes Twitter so enjoyable.  Concentrate on the 99.75% and the 99.8%.  I know it's not human to do so, but they really do deserve your attention more.



There we go.  I feel better for having written this anyway, which I guess is the whole point of blogging.  I hope you've enjoyed reading it.  I'm now off to "make like a tree and wobble off".  Yes, what the *actual* fuck <does> that mean...?

A Celebrity Dies

I woke up this morning, just as you probably did, to the news that Whitney Houston had died, aged 48.  It's one of those days when frankly I'd rather not be on Twitter.  We follow the same pattern we've seen on recent events.

Initial Responses

First come the people announcing the news.  Many people wake up and tweet it as if they are breaking some news.  Look at your timeline first and you'll realise that 1/3 of the tweets probably relate to it.

People then express their upset.  It's often heartfelt if they are fans.  For this to be a big story it means that the person involved had or used to have a major fan base.  Even if you haven't bought the person's records recently, or seen a film they've been in, or watched the sport they played, you'll have seen their name and know who they are.  For me in this case the news brought back memories of my 15th birthday and a song that was in the charts.  Like it or not, "celebrity" forms a big part of our every day existence.

The RIPs flood in.  I guess this is just a way of people expressing their sorrow, but there is very little can be said and when you've seen the 18th in a row, you wonder a little what it is adding, even if it harms no one.

The Worthies

Next we have the "worthies".  These are mainly people on the left who attack the "cult of celebrity".  Yes, you have a point.  Children were killed in Gaza, people were murdered by their government in Syria, homeless people will be freezing to death in this weather.  Thanks for pointing this out.  Does it mean though that someone expressing their upset about an artist they liked cannot feel upset and outrage about this too?  Why is it one or the other?  Is emotion like a pie that has to be shared out in a limited number of pieces? Do you think for one moment that the press will change its ways because you've got on your soapbox?  In any case, the news *is* actually full of stories about Syria and it's a sickening upsetting sight we're all to familiar with.  My timeline has been full of discussion about it.  Do you feel better, more intelligent, or that you've somehow proved your moral integrity for having tweeted about this?

You're also missing an important point: we have a "relationship" with celebrities that we do not with the people involved in these other matters.  I can feel horror and pain at the sight of a nameless child on my TV, but he or she has not formed part of my memory and day to day life in the way a celebrity has.  I know who Whitney Houston, Amy Winehouse or Gary Speed "was": it is only natural I will a degree of association I cannot with the other victims unless I've family or friends in the place affected.  That in no way means the death of the individuals elsewhere is less important (and it's a bit idiotic that I have to add this sentence for the avoidance of doubt.)

The Jokes

Next we have the sick jokes.  They're not even original.  The one below appeared six times in a row on a search.  People aren't even crediting it, they're stealing it from one another.  I like to think I have quite a good sense of humour (who doesn't) - but frankly, just fuck off. 

I've got no time for anyone in my timeline who thinks it's amusing to joke about the recent death of a mother and to compare that to a load of murdered teenagers.

Moral Lessons

Next come the moral lessons.  In some cases, for example Gary Speed, Twitter served arguably a good function in getting people to talk about the issue of suicide.  I found that day personally a bit overwhelming and had to get out.  Anyone who has thought about suicide is well aware of the issues and I do have some residual doubts that his tragic death will have "served the greater good" in any way, but the intentions are no doubt good.

With Whitney Houston, we've already had people falling over themselves to warn of the dangers of drugs.  The first point here is no one knows if her death was drugs related.  People did exactly the same with Amy Winehouse, and it looks like it was actually alcohol that killed her.  The next point is that I remember well when River Phoenix died.  Did his death have the slightest bearing on me in my twenties as to my own behaviour?  Of course it bloody didn't.  WE ALL KNOW drugs are a bad thing that can and do cause deaths.  You'd have to be an utter moron not to.  I really don't think that my tweeting "now kids, remember, don't do drugs" is going to have any effect on any of my followers. 

Into the moral lessons come the snide remarks about someone's life.  Yes, Whitney Houston apparently had major substance issues.  How about feeling compassion, rather than judging her when she has not even been dead 12 hours?  Again what does that do?  Make you feel oh so smug?  Well good for you.

Saying Nothing

Twitter is about saying things.  It is Camus in action: it wouldn't exist if we didn't say things: we'd be looking at a big blank screen with nothing going on. I tweet, therefore I am.  The same can be said about this blog: why am I even bothering to blog this?  It's not about dictating how people should react or tweet, it's about thinking a little bit more about things.  You can agree or disagree, but at least you've considered the issue.

It really is the biggest cliché but I do think the saying "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all" could applied a bit more frequently.  An event like this brings out the worst of people.  Worthiness, smugness, judgement, sick jokes.  Someone has died: I can see the arguments breaking out already on my timeline and people taking objection to things others have said.  Isn't that a bit sad? 

I didn't know Whitney Houston: I didn't particularly like her music.  I didn't feel the need to tweet anything about her this morning: Bren (above) just said it perfectly for me.  I'm so glad Twitter wasn't around when Princess Diana died: it would literally have been unbearable.  When Mrs Thatcher dies it will be the same.  You don't have to worship someone, agree with them, or even like them at all to realise a death is a genuinely sad thing for many people.  In my view it's not hard just to see it in those simple terms and to respect that.

Twitchforks and Twitterstorms

We've all seen it.  It can happen on a macro or a micro level.  Twitter, with the power of the RT at its disposal can have a phenomenally effect, in both positive and negative ways.

The Little Tweeting Bird has Real Power

On a macro scale people get upset about something on Twitter and it becomes the latest thing: a Twitter Storm.  Outrage is expressed about a video of a woman mouthing off on a tram that leads to a criminal prosecution, a tidal wave of support ("I am Spartacus!") is expressed about a joke that has led to a criminal prosecution, or a international gym chain backs down of the way it has behaved with its 24 month contracts. 

On a micro level the same of course applies. You may be going through a tough time: having lost your dog, having an operation in front of you, or being worried about your job. 20 messages of support from a group of people, even if you don't know them terribly well, are wonderful and touching.  When you're feeling down or lonely this can really matter. 

The flip side of all this is when the Twitchforks come out and the 20 messages are ones of abuse, or when the Twitterstorm is actually completely misguided.

Twitterstorm: Photography banned in Trafalgar Square

A couple of days ago a blog by a photographer was circulating and some quite intelligent people were expressing outrage at the fact that new bye-laws would mean photography, using a mobile phone, camping, flying a kite and feeding birds in Trafalgar Square would now be banned.  The blog was RTd repeatedly, with people adding comments like "totally unbelievable!"

PHOTOGRAPHY TO BE BANNED: CUE OUTRAGE!

The reason the blog was unbelievable was that it was wrong.  Every one of the restrictions contained in the new bye-laws were not "new" - they had been in place either since 2000 or since 2002.  Ordinary photography is not banned in Trafalgar Square, nor will it be. Commercial photography without a permit (which are available from the Mayor's office) has not been allowed there for the past 12 years.  This is nothing new at all.  The fact that only commercial photography is involved was entirely clear from the short bye-law that was published in full on the blog.  You only had to read it to realise the blogger had made a mistake that led to the screaming headline - the whole blog was wrong.

Did people read the blog before RTing it?  Presumably not.  The storm went on all day.  It annoyed the shit out of me because there was actually an important story here.  There is a downloadable file where you can compare the old and new bye-laws: they are almost entirely identical, down to the language used.  This is a tidying up exercise by Boris Johnson of Ken Livingstone measures - with one very important difference.  That relates to enforcement.  Where previously you had to provide your name/address to an "authorised person", now that person can legally order you to leave the Square with hefty punishments if you do not. 

These measures are, in fact, about the Mayor of London putting in place fairly draconian powers to allow the Square to be kept clear of people during the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations: that was brought out far better in @SturdyAlex's blog.  The measures are in my view illiberal, and completely objectionable.  What they are not are new laws stopping tourists from taking a photo.  Because people have got the wrong end of the stick, Boris has got off the hook on this: how easy for his supporters to undermine the claims.  That pisses me right off too. 

The beauty of blogging is expressing an opinion; getting a viewpoint out there and seeing what others think.  That is completely impossible when the entire factual basis of what you are writing is wrong.  The ethics of blogging are being discussed before the Leveson Inquiry at the moment: I would say every blogger owes a critical duty to ensure that his/her facts are as solid as possible before pressing publish.  If there is a mistake, which of course happens, you should bloody well fess up, correct or take your blog down and make an apology. 

Read before you RT?

From the perspective of the Twitter user pressing RT and adding outraged comments, I'd also suggest it's pretty important to actually read whatever you are sending on to your own followers.  An RT doesn't imply agreement, but surely we should bother to look at the item rather than reading its headline? If you had read the blog in question you would have seen the commercial photography element glaring at you, without needing to do any more research.

Twitchforks: an example

Now, the micro level.  Back in November I saw an example of Twitchforks that really troubled me.  A gay man announced to his 900 followers that another gay man, whose photo and real name appears on his profile is a "cunt" who is HIV positive and is sleeping around, having unprotected sex with other men. 

I'm sure you'll agree this is a pretty serious allegation.  A posse was soon formed, the twitchforks came out, and there were screams of condemnation and disgust.  It is also an extremely problematical claim.  We were not told if the man had disclosed his status to his partners or not, how many guys were involved, if they knew their own status, why these men were agreeing to engage in a highly unsafe activity (regardless of the information in their possession) etc.  We had no idea what the motivation of the accuser was - looking at his timeline that day he said nothing more substantive than the first allegation.  The only thing that did become clear was that the accuser had not slept with the man.  His ex-boyfriend apparently had, so this was a word of mouth allegation the accuser had then decided to publish on Twitter.

This was Twitter at its most brutal, bullying and basic: people believing what they read without any critical thought or other knowledge.  Amongst the outrage a few isolated people stopped and asked the critical question: was any evidence for the allegations?  The accuser admitted there was none and said people had to believe him.  The allegations were in fact flatly denied by the accused, who had not been open about his HIV status before, and was effectively "outed" by them.  At the end of the day the tweeter thanked his "loyal followers" for the shit storm that had happened, and their reactions.


Like you, I simply cannot judge the veracity of the claims, nor is it my place to.  SURELY if the accuser seriously believes this man is a danger, the place to go is to the Police?  Why were people joining in with this?  If you want to support an online friend, should that extend blindly to reaching for the Twitchfork, on the basis of zero evidence, with the knowledge that this behaviour could drive someone off Twitter and/or have a much more serious "real life" effect on them? 

Twitchforks: an ugly feature of the Medium

I'd also ask whether Twitter is really here for making accusations about personal aspects of someone's life?  It's tangential, but the accusation was not that the man was using Twitter to meet people to sleep with: this was just about outing him as being HIV+ and making an accusation about his life completely off Twitter.  He wasn't being accused of being a bully, or lying about himself, or being a fraud on Twitter: this was about his sex life and medical condition. 

Think about this: how would you feel if someone revealed you had an abortion years back, that you enjoy visiting sex workers, or are having an affair.  It could be potentially horrendous for you if true: imagine if it were a lie and people started RTing it?  Even if denied, how many people would think "ooooh there's no smoke without fire!"?

There is literally nothing to stop anyone making an accusation about anyone on here and that not spreading like wildfire.  This frankly terrifies me.  Most of us aren't that well known or interesting to warrant this type of treatment: but you must know how much one nasty comment can hurt during an evening on Twitter.  It sticks with you for days.  Imagine being on the end of a Twitter Posse.  This may "just be Twitter", but I sent the man involved in the HIV allegations (whom I had recently started following at the time) a DM to ask if he was okay.  His reply simply said "I want to die".  Having a vague idea of the other things that are going on his life at the moment, I fully believe he meant that.  

COME ON GUYS: is this right? Twitter as a place that acts as a posse, judge, jury and potential destroyer of someone's life, operating with no evidence regarding deeply private aspects of someone's life.  I don't care how how serious or "juicy" the claims are, I will not join in with it.  I can't judge the HIV+ man's actions because I do not know the facts, but I can judge what I saw that day on Twitter.  The people who engaged it in were pretty ugly.  The accuser came across as the vindictive bully and those who reached for the Twitchforks were at best deeply misguided.

The Power of Twitter

Twitter is just a mirror of people.  We find many good souls, and many good things can take place on here.  We find a few bad apples, and we find lots of people who don't mean to harm but still can.  Twitter's power is its speed and ability to reach many.  The RT button is the key to this. 

This (once again) has been a long rambling blog but it contains a simple message.  Think before you tweet, and most of all, think critically before you RT.  Twitchforks hurt.  In extreme circumstances they can push someone over the edge.  Twitterstorms can bring about a pleasant change in the weather, but please, please check your facts as far as you are able.