To Ask That MNHQ Treat ALL Posts/Posters/Campaigns Seeking To Derail & Hunt Out Any Form Of Bigotry, As They Do Troll Hunters

^ To Pumpkin.

I agree but HQ have always welcomed discussions/suggestions.

''Instead they [MNHQ] let threads carry on far too long and let people antagonise each other from thread to thread @nd everyone becomes and defensive all over the shop.''

I guess it would be very cynical of me to think that leaving arguments up boosts reader numbers ...

That's up to MNHQ, their site, their rules.

I agree those attitudes exist and are damaging.

But it is also just as damaging for those who think they know better to tell a SAHM she cannot be a feminist/she is sexist simply because she has a different view of things.

My view is that it goes to far sometime - That is not disablist but it's fine to call me it because there is nothing in the guidelines against it.

Where do we draw the line when it comes to using that word here?

There's no hive mind on either side, lots of shades of opinion and belief.

On the Sally Phillips thread, many posters with children with disabilities (in this case, Down Syndrome) were furious to have others imagine that their lives were difficult or problematic due to their child's disability. They were adamant that their child's disability creates no more difficulties than any parent would expect with a NT child.

That's obviously very personal to each poster's life and experience, but on most other threads, parents are frustrated by how little society at large recognises and acknowledges the challenges they face on a daily basis because of their child's disability.

Clearly there are massively differing views within the 'community', and so it's hard to know how to approach that when personal info is unknown.

If I express sympathy/ empathy/ understanding of how hard it might be, I could cause offence. Or if I don't. Unless I know the parent personally, the best policy is to keep it clamped. So that would mean most online interactions as I have no idea what people are dealing with in their own homes.

Being a member of a minority group/an oppressed class doesn't mean you are immune from the all pervasive and damaging (to the class of people though not always to all the individuals in that class) bigotry.

Polter, I agree with you there but it also works the other way. Like a person who decides SAHM's are anti-feminist because of their choice.

It is possible that people can take things too far.

I was called disablist yesterday for suggesting that - in my opinion - there is an element of looking for trouble going on.

No rhyme or reason for the accusation; just that poster was pissed off with what I had said so it was disablist.

That sort of crap doesn't help anyone.

The guidelines can't be ignore until it turns into a bunfight and everyone is furious with one another? :(
That's not how pacifism works.

Bishop - what if it's an adult screaming, shouting obscenities and throwing stones at passing children? Without knowing whether or not they would/should/could be aware of their actions and consequences.

Frankly, I'm tired of making every effort to be reasonable and calm and polite, and being attacked and accused of implying something at every turn. I think I've been quite open and honest as well as measured in this discussion, but that's twice now I've been hounded and verbally repeatedly attacked over this.

This is why these threads spiral into chaos and accusations. I've tried, but clearly it's pointless.

Ginger You know that you can imply things regardless of whether you say them outright or not?

If you want to see slights in everything, do continue but don't do it my name as a disabled person.

Owllady - MNHQ probably do have clear guidelines. The problem is that they are guidelines and can't account for every tiny little thing that someone, somewhere might find offensive. I've seen on a lot of these threads where even posters with the same disability disagree as to whether something is disablist or not. How can anyone set guidelines round that?

Gruffalo just as with sexism, racism, any ism. Those who see it.

Gruffalo if a person from any group of ethnicity, sex, religion etc recognises an ism they have a right to highlight that without being called on it or sniped at. I'd echo Ginger's sigh.

Milk - in that case it depends. If they "suffered as a result of someone with a disability" and it transpires it's in a situation like school when with proper support the incident should never have taken place then yes it is disablist to blame the child. The responsible body is the school who should be meeting needs to prevent incidents.

There are other times when tolerance needs to come into play too - autistic chi,drawn in the theatre for example. It's disablist to say they shouldn't be there.

If it's a disabled person being physically/verbally abusive and they know they are doing it and in control of their actions then fair dos they're being an arse, but in that instance their disability doesn't come into it, they're being an arse. It's like threads I've seen here "some Asian did this..." - racist and irrelevant. If they're an arse because x then say they're an arse because x. Not there's a disabled arse.

In the interest of being clear, I can repost this that you posted G

Well your only suggestion Ginger has been to shout discrimination for a child asking to be moved, which suggests you feel she shouldn't be moved when it is directly impacting her education.

And this is what I posted above:

Just today, I was accused of "shouting discrimination" when I'd not mentioned disabilism OR discrimination. I didn't shout, was calm, and trying to make a point. But some people do react badly no matter how it's brought up.

***
I cannot see where I put any words in your mouth when you clearly stated that my reaction was "to shout discrimination" when I absolutely did not.

I don't feel that attacking me repeatedly is helpful. I was polite, calm, and made valid points. I'm sorry if that made you uncomfortable and if you did not like it, but I can't help that. As I said, some people do react badly.

Gruffalo they of course are allowed that opinion. Just as some women don't notice covert misogyny.

See what I mean?

The actual real problem is MNHQ. If they had clear guidelines in place and had received advice and diversity training, I really don't think the current situation would arise. Instead they let threads carry on far too long and let people antagonise each other from thread to thread @nd everyone becomes and defensive all over the shop. Instead of just common sense around all of it and control over what is and isn't current correct terminology/attitudes.

It's been going on for months, why it wasn't nipped in the bud is beyond me. Of course people will become angry if they belong to a minority group are being told by the majority that what they experience and feel isn't real because they say so.

Ginger You were obviously implying there was discrimination going on in that thread, honestly. This is why people automatically jump on the defensive. Stop taking my words out of context to fit your needs.

I think most times, it's brought up as "that's not a good expression to use" or in a basically informational style. It's rare that people instantly jump to shrieks of "you're disablist!"

Just today, I was accused of "shouting discrimination" when I'd not mentioned disabilism OR discrimination. I didn't shout, was calm, and trying to make a point. But some people do react badly no matter how it's brought up.