Another Day, Another Azadibani Account.

I can't decide whether to pity Mr Azadibani, ridicule him or continue with the low level contempt. Why on earth would ANYONE set up eight accounts, trawl through my followers, trawl through my daughters tweets just to annoy me and seek attention? Really, why?  Is it a lack of friends (although on the evidence so far, detailing where he lives, he seems to be a father living in a lovely part of the world)?  Is it an obsessive compulsive disorder?  If so, take Sertraline, like other people. Is it, as I suspect, a twisted overwhelming desire to seek out women with opinions and at best belittle or at worst intimidate? Yep, I guess so. 

His latest drivel azadibani.wordpress.com seems to set out the case for open debate and discussion. PMSL, as my kids would say. 'I want open debate, from behind a series of anonymous Arabic/Jewish/feline/female facades."  I want to name and hold you to account, but I'm so ashamed of my opinions I'm not going to say who I am."

Having failed to convince me that @azadibani was a hacked account through his comments as Forest Biker, a further two accounts are set up. Firstly, Paula Smith tries to troll me and Bristol Jane, urging debate about the hijab, then John Cohen joins in telling me if I don't want to cover up, I should walk about in the nude. Eh!! Is there supposed to be a scrap of logic in this clusterfuck of awful? Oh no, sorry, I forgot, a man just tripping up on his own frothy mouthed hatred of feminists. Those bitches.  And the spelling! Jeez. Although as I'm pretty sure English isn't his first language I guess I should be understanding, but may I suggest spellcheck?  Although as I imagine him one hand typing furiously masturbating at his own cleverness that might tricky. 

Then @julieduhon appears. More garbage. More "knowing you" cods wallop. You don't know me. We've never even met, you delusional arsewipe. But unforgivably he provokes me by tweeting my daughter. The one he followed previously. That's it. Having been advised before, I will now seek police advice. But I have one suggestion for you Mr A. You want a debate, huh?  Let's meet up. Bring some mates. I'll bring some too. We can have a lovely chat. I promise I'll overcome my dislike for bourgeois expressions like freedom of speech to tell you what I really think. You won't though, will you?  You'll keep on with the one hand typing, the dreary tweets, the unintelligible blogging. You think you'll prove some pathetic point. You won't. You picked the wrong target sweetheart. 

Freedom of Speech? Or Duty to Shut Up?

I hate the term freedom of speech.  It is usually harrumphed rather than spoken, the Get Out of Jail Free card for Bigots R Us.  People get to be abusive, unpleasant and offensive and then claim their freedom of speech, as if they live in a bubble rather than a collective society where all our actions have potential reactions.  It is used to defend rape threats made against women like Caroline Criado Perez, or bile against equal marriage.  This is my test for those who champion unfettered free speech.  If you are prepared for an aggressive stranger to go up to your mother, daughter or sister and tell her she needs raping with a broken bottle and your sole reaction would be to shrug and say that was their freedom of speech, then fine.  This is my alternative to freedom of speech: a charter of responsibilities.  Because individual rights are a feature of a capitalist society, a sweet handed out to a child to make her forget that someone took over the chocolate factory.  Responsibilities are about power.

The Responsibility to Speak Out

On a train the other day a drunken idiot swore loudly at anyone looking at him and offered to spray semen all over the face of the woman opposite.  Everyone looked away.  I tried to - I was tired after a long day.  But after the semen comment I looked in disgust at him and as he opened his mouth, I interrupted to tell him what an odious human being he was.  We both stood up to get off the train at the same stop.  He obviously thought I'd be intimidated at standing next to him.  He thought wrong.  He told me I was doing his head in and to stop.  So I didn't. Because sometimes people really do ask for it.  When schoolgirls are abused for wearing headscarves, or gay couples harangued for holding hands, we all have a duty to speak up.

The Responsibility to Claim Distress only when it's genuine.

Folk of Twitter, I'm talking to you.  There's a lot of upset on Twitter, most of it genuine and nothing is better than a righteous Twitter anger, raging against the powerful, the racist, the homophobic, misogyny or malign idiocy.  But there are people who are only happy when they are upset, when it means they have proved an opponent not only wrong, but harmful and evil.  I won't even go into the endless civil war between radical and intersectional feminism, where one side accuses the other of being responsible for the murder of either trans-women or women.  Some time ago, one of my favourite online writers Steven Baxter responded to the call of Nadine Dorries for sex ed lessons by tweeting that sex ed lessons should consist of being told how to put a condom on Nadine Dorries head.  Mildly funny and retweeted.  As it came to the attention of another gang of right wing, catholic women, a Twitchfork mob set off on their iPhone horses to attack him for wishing a violent pornographic death on a woman for daring to have an opinion.  Yes, really.  I witnessed this and politely suggested they might be overreacting.  Hooves screech in Twitter dust and the mob comes towards me.  How dare I disagree, and what's more I clearly have a limited vocabulary.  (It seems this really was the worst insult they could throw).  I'm all for attacking those who genuinely wish violent pornographic deaths on women, but Steven Baxter at the time was a gentle, left of centre New Statesman blogger who wrote about the vile crassness of the Daily Fail, depression and biscuits. Some emotions are beyond our control, shock, fear of imminent attack or rage.  Others are sometimes manufactured, so that playground bullies can round up their mates to give the shy kid a good kicking.  

The Responsibility to Shut Up

Given that my last post was about not shutting up because a Twitter Troll thinks I should, when, if any, is the right time to shut up?  

1. When someone else who hasn't spoken is speaking and you disagree. Unless you have goldfish memory (in which case write things down) what you want to say will wait and it might be that if you don't interrupt you might learn something.  Actually try listening to people rather than rehearsing your next argument.  

2. When you have nothing nice to say.  Exceptions to this are: Any member of the Government.  Actually any Tory.  Anyone who is beyond your hearing, such as a sportsperson or person on the TV.  Even in those circumstances, if your sole contribution to public debate is that she has a really fat arse and no one would shag her, you definitely should zip it.  

3. When you are targeting someone and they have no interest.  

4. When a woman, black person, gay person, disabled person is telling you what it's like to be a woman, black, gay, disabled and you want to tell them they're wrong.  

We all think we know what's best or the right answer.  The trouble is, we can't always be right.  Taking the time to keep quiet, to listen may mean that when you do speak out, it matters and others listen. 

Twitter and Trolls

It would seem to be a rite of passage to experience trolling on Twitter.  It comes in certain forms and there does seem to be a gender divide.  Male exchanges seem to go straight to insults, although the whole radical vs intersectional feminist brawls are changing that.  Male to female seems to start with being told to shut up or are stupid and end in the inevitable claim that you are ugly.  Because obviously a sad stranger's opinion on what you look like is what motivates all women.  A few years ago, two hysterically funny* tweeters sent me abusive tweets after I dared suggest that bulldozing a travellers site wasn't the best use of public funds.  Tweet after tweet failed to make an articulate case, but focused on the fact I have ginger hair.  Comparisons with Bianca (Jackson, not Jagger obv) as well as the inevitable collar and cuffs remark were clearly intended to make me shrink away. Unfortunately as I was away from home and without mobile signal I didn't even see them.  Like playground bullies after school they slunk away.

But now I have a proper troll.  One so intent on passive aggressive behaviour he has set up six successive accounts to send hostile tweets, after each one was blocked.  First came @azadibani.  I didn't even notice at first.  A tweet calling me a dimwit after excessive limoncello drinking.  Fair enough actually.  Then another telling me I was against men and older men after I tweeted about middle aged white men talking about "New Politics".  But his use of "knowing you" irritated me, so I blocked.  And didn't even think twice. So along came @alibani8 tutting at my blocking and telling me if I wanted to keep my account private I should protect my tweets.  I don't want to keep my account private.  I just want to use the block button for its intended purpose - to block. His response was that there was no point and we would 'talk soon'.  @johncoh15663163 was next to appear.  His "I enjoy reading your tweets" was rather ruined by his use of identical tweets to a previous incarnation.  Blocked again.  But then something rather sinister happened.  Checking my daughter's Twitter account, I noticed that @azadibani was following her.  She only had six followers.  I was genuinely outraged and when I checked @azadinbani's account, he had started following UNISON accounts, Iranian accounts and Higher Ed accounts, but then followed my daughter, my son, my daughter's friends, my son's bassoon teacher and bloggers I engage with over feminism and health issues.  A whole list of people followed for what reason? Randomly, or because each one of them had recently followed or tweeted me.  I advised people to block.  Further denials and self justification from troll boy, including the incredible demand that I send him the evidence ie the screenshots of which accounts were my daughter and son and their friends.  Because obviously I'd want this lowlife to know which ones were my kids.  Anyone who tweeted me about this would be challenged by him as if he lurked over my accounts. A blog appeared.  All about me.  How sweet

@jccooperj followed.  This time pretending to be a cat.  Blocked.  The next day @mary89775227 turned up, claiming my tweet comparing turning the Royal Mail to the markets to turning kids over to Jimmy Savile was offensive. Blocked again.  Once again, aggressive, whiny tweets to someone who offered support.  It's not him, it's me apparently. @juliejo46952686 is the latest attempt.  Six accounts, all of which need new email accounts, all set up to send aggressive tweets to a woman on the Internet. Who does this?  Really?

So why don't I protect my account?  Actually why do I use Twitter at all?  And if I use it, why not stick to politics, rather than posting personal stuff?  First of all, I use Twitter because I enjoy it.  I like the fast flow of information, the witticisms about current events, especially when watched in conjunction with #bbcqt as much as #gbbo.  I have had fascinating discussions about feminism, socialism, union organising as much as group chatter about contestants on X Factor.  I tweet about politics and personal stuff, because I am political and also, well, a person.  I don't feel that because I have a certain job or work for a certain organisation (neither of which are mentioned in my bio). That this means I have to give the impression of a clone, a representative with no hinterland of family, of likes and dislikes, of humour or friends.  Ed Balls tweets pictures of cakes he made and Harriet Harman tweets about the X Factor and appear to survive regardless.  I could of course protect my account.  But this is the equivalent of covering up in public to avoid sexual assault or harassment.  If I don't want abuse, I should shut up.  Actually, the issue is the pathetic figure who sets up account after account to troll some woman he doesn't like, hiding behind anonymity every time, even though there are obvious giveaways to who he is.  And yes, he is a he.  Apparently I think this due to my feminist bias.

  I'm proud of my feminist bias.  It makes me believe rape victims over rapists.  I understand the Everyday Sexism experiences.  I know that when someone says Grow Up, Woman, from an anonymous account, that they're a man.  And it means I recognise that someone who has time to set up six accounts to abuse a woman on the Internet is either a saddo in stained underpants living alone or has someone else doing all the work. 
My feminist bias means I shout back.  Unless of course I choose not to.  That's the whole thing about feminism.  It means some delusional misfit, who can't get over the fact that he doesn't get to tell me what do do, doesn't get me to do what he wants me to do.  To cover up on Twitter.  To tell him he's right.  Because I'm right about this one and loser troll boy is the one who needs to grow up and realise  his own deep inadequacy. I'm sure he'll feel better for it

*Beavis and Butthead, without the irony.  Or the good writing.