i will be discussing Amy Lai Tak-yee's essay on cyberculture in Hong Kong, as examined through the online community 'ICERED'.
Tak-yee presents a compelling argument about how users of ICERED were able to voice racist, sexist and homophobic ideals, commonly to the point of blatant slander and abuse, because of its nature as a virtual space. The concept of 'cyber-democracy' is explored in regards to the idea of freedom of speech - which the creators of ICERED (Tim Lam and Kenny Lam) advocated.
"Your English Sucks" explored the fact that in Hong Kong, being able to express oneself eloquently in English indicated their higher education and social background. There was a focus in this section on whether individual IceRedders were 'local' or 'not local', with 'not local' being synonymous with having a higher intellect. This section demonstrates the marginalization in ICERED in regards to class.
The section titled "The Unbearable White-ness of ICERED" flagged the fact that Hong Kong is "not a very racist place in the sense of the whites, who are regarded as more superior", however, racist rantings are indeed found in ICERED. The author argues that this may be due to the fact that ICERED is an English-language site. I found the argument put forward by IceRedder 'RATMAN' regarding the peripheral vision of the Chinese absolutely ludicrous, and a perfect illustration of the narrow-mindedness of individuals. Tak-yee's argument is that race is able to be conveyed to the virtual world because an individuals perspective on racial issues will more often than not indicate their race. For example, RATMAN is assumed to be a white racist.
Sexism also exists within ICERED, highlighted in the thread "Men are after sex, women, after money." It is my opinion that the anonymity of the virtual world allows sexism to flow more readily, as individuals are not held back by the restraints of social etiquette, and instead allowed to take a leaf out of RATMAN's book, and engage in ridiculously offensive arguments, often without any actual evidence to back up their claims (such as his claim that Chinese women have the lowest IQ of any other Asian country).
The third issue dealt with in this article is that of homophobia on ICERED, as shown through the thread "Homosexual on ICERED". Claims that homosexuals 'harm our children' and are 'sick' or 'sordid' indicate the ignorance of homophobes. ICERED did not censor discussions on homosexuality, and allowed discussions such as that of 'E-rayzor' on 'rimming'.
i agree with Tak-yee's idea that marginalization occurs online like it does offline. The fact that people are able to hide their identities means that they do not have to take responsibility for their opinions, and therefore are more free to express their racist, sexist, or homophobic attitudes to the point of obnoxiousness.
Finally, the ICERED article illustrates the fact that events in the virtual world can impact the real world. Examples of this include voting of actual people for titles such as "party animal of Hong Kong", "Most Eligable Banker" and "Most Beautiful Woman in Central." Also, there are examples of individuals in the virtual world organising get togethers for other virtual participants in the actual world, meaning that online 'celebrities' can meet their online 'fans' outside the constraints of ICERED.
All in all, i think that Tak-yee presents a compelling argument on how marginalization exists in the virtual world, through the use of ICERED as a microchasm. The sexist, racist and homophobic hostilities present within this online community indicate that the virtual world cannot be entirely seperated from the actual world, as personal views of class, and race, as well as background and education all contribute to how one presents themselves and their ideas in online communites.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I found it interesting that ICERED would not censor any racial comments that people had made. Surely this means that even though racism is not accepted in the real world it is accepted in the virtual? Why is it that their is a public outcry when a racist comment is passed in the real world but there are 1000's and 1000's of these comments online and they are simply ignored.... just a thought....
I found it interesting when Tak-Yee was tackling the concept of whether ICERED could be considered an 'ideal speaking situation' under Habermas' framework. On the one hand, all participants are able to speak their mind and take part in a discussion, to question and debate concepts and to express their opinions, but on the other hand it is important to consider who is allowed to express their opinion and who isn't. Since the website is limited to 'high income professionals' and 'university alumni of top universities', a limited scope of opinions are being presented.
Furthermore, as Tak-Yee expressed, constructive conversation and debate takes a backseat and is replaced by abusive digs and generalisations. So for these reasons, I believe that the website doesn't conform to Habermas' 'ideal speaking situation'.
Furthermore, it is interesting to consider how one can intervene in situations such as the ones Tak-Yee described. With ICERED enforcing policies to protect the privacy of its users and the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (page 2/24), it is almost impossible for moderators to control the discussions taking place on the website.
So I guess it's up to users to defend themselves and others when abusive conversations begin? But then again, since the scope of citizens who are able to access the website is so limited, discussions would take place about people who are unable to defend themselves.
In answering the second part of the question, it seems to me that participants exclude or include others purely through their command of the English language.
I know that I am a latecomer to this discussion, but there are a few points which I would like to expand on.
Firstly is the issue of anonymity in the ICERED community, and how one might present themself online. Emily pointed out that the anonymity of handles makes racist/sexist opinions much easier to express. Behind this is the issue of identity (or lack thereof): online anonymity gives people the freedom to be whoever they want. As Tak-Yee carefully reiterates throughout the article- what we perceive to be the “identity” of any poster is always only going to be speculative.
The motivation behind racist, sexist, or homophobic posts is not fixed. I.e. The handle RATMAN in regards to racism is a great example. When reading his comments, we initially come to the conclusion of RATMAN’s identity as a white racist. But perhaps he is just a trouble maker, who enjoys causing a commotion online. Nobody can say whether or not RATMAN is a white racist or just somebody who enjoys heating up the discussion rooms with outrageous and offensive comments ….and therein lies the puzzle of the fluidity of online identity.
The issue of class marginalisation is also very important. Both Emily and Isabel touched on the way in which knowledge/aptitude of the English language plays a vital role in the power divide on ICERED. Tak-yee investigates the way in which posters with less than native speaker proficiency in English (i.e. those showing grammatical errors or being “too local” (p3/24)) were disfavoured in the online community. Yet Hong Kong’s main official language is Cantonese, not English. This points directly to the issue of cultural imperialism. The inherent prejudice towards languages other than English on the site signals the artificial injection of the English speaking culture into HK. The general attitude of the ICERED community is in favour of English speaking, and this is seen in conversations which deem the divide between “local” and “non-local” very important (in favour of non-local).
First of all I was taken aback by the fact that the people who are posting these comments are 'university alumni of top universities' and 'high income professionals' You would think that people from such a high level of education and/or status would be more open-minded.
I agree with Emily in the sense that the anonymity that the cyber world provides you with enables you to express views and opinions which you would not otherwise be able to express due to rules of social interaction. Yet I think that certain people do take the idea of freedom of speech to an extreme with ICERED and as I read I felt as if all of the comments had a malignant intent and came from an incredibly bitter place. The racism, sexism, and homophobia that we are faced with in ICERED comes from a place of ignorance instead of intellect and I find it ironic that the people harbor these ridiculous thoughts are supposed to be the educated and elite. Could of fooled me!
Post a Comment