How about a campaign where the users get MNHQ staff to take diversity training?

True.

However, if the recent brouhaha had been about racism rather than disablism, I doubt there'd be so many dismissive posts of the 'stop being demanding' and 'these threads are embarrassing' variety.

Manu this thread is about diversity training so racism falls under that.

This isn't just about disablism though - the OP talks about low level racism too. "Beyond the pale" certainly fits that bill. It could be argued.

Well TBF, 'beyond the pale' was a hellish debate but it's not something that needs settling as part of the disablism issue.

Just something as simple as adapting the principles of 'this is my child' for use as talk guidelines and starting from there would be a jumping off point.

I don't think Justine expressed herself well on the diabetes issue and she clearly isn't particularly knowledgeable about it. I also took issue with something she wrote in the FT about what women want from work which had more credibility, because of her status as the founder of this forum, than it would otherwise have done. I don't think she did a terribly good job afterwards of accepting that lots of women actually don't feel as she said we did and that she had alienated a lot of her users with her proclamations.

Having said that, I don't like the idea that any one of us has to be immaculate on everything all the time, particularly when having to speak in public or even on the internet. It all gets a bit close to internet shaming for me.

I have learned a huge amount from this site. I don't have any very close experience of serious disability for example, but I've learned a bit from the conversations on here. But I learn more when it doesn't descend into people claiming that a misspoken but well-meant word is "vile". It all gets a bit shaming and not helpful. I'd rather this site did not go down that route. That stuff makes me switch off.

There's the rub Pretty for some training isnt about informing and educating it's not enough until everyone speaks exactly in rote with no diversity of thought and opinion!

I just can't see how everyone will ever agree on it.

Ie, the words idiot or moron. Each one is acceptable to varying degrees by each one of us. Some not at all, others all the way.

Where do MNHQ go with that? Delete every single instance of idiot ever?

Ditto with the phrase "beyond the pale" which was raised as being racist against Irish people and debated at length.

Where is the line? You say you want a zero tolerance attitude to these isms but that would include deleting all instances of words such as the above. And when does it merge from deleting disablist posts to halting free speech? If I want to use the word idiot surely that's my choice as I believe it's lost all previous meaning now.

Why do the wants of you or me trump over others? Who is to say what is interpeted as offensive?

I completely agree over obvious issues but it's not those we are debating on, it's the finer points and it's not enough to just shout that MNHQ let "ist" posts stand and demand them having extra training when these issues will continue to remain.

I don't know enough about this to know if training is standardised across UK or not

In my experience, diversity training ranges from in-depth, intelligently delivered contextual and legislatively-aware thorough teaching to axe-grinding, inappropriately personal, overly emotional ranting tosh.

I wonder what kind the OP had in mind and if she sound perhaps link to the sort of issues she'd like to see covered.

merryweather you are right. It's very much that!

I tell you one thing I really wouldn't want to do MNHQs job. The utter shit that they get is ridiculous and uncalled for. On other forums half of the people on this thread alone would be banned.

HQ try and encourage debate of important issues that other places won't even let you mention whilst trying to stop some truly vile people from upsetting half the forum. They troll hunt so often they must go through a lot of wellies walking under all those bridges. They also often face a barrage of attacks in public whenever certain people decide that whatever they did wasn't good enough.

Look at how much abuse Justine has got for example. It's ridiculous. She was in a stressful situation and she expressed an opinion in a clumsily worded way. She apologised for any upset and explained herself. Some people agree with her stance and others don't. Those who don't appear to have taken it upon themselves to be judge jury and executioner. The thread is full of bile and hatred but yet she has let it stand so people can have Freedom of speech. I think she's fucking awesome for that alone tbh.

As PPs have said this forum is what it is because people are allowed freedom to speak openly and candidly, freedom to debate topics that may offend and freedom to swear. If you don't like it go elsewhere. There are literally hundreds of parent forums. Deregister and get on google.

HQ YOU ARE AMAZING!

Manumission, I agree people have always given HQ suggestions about how MN could improve and HQ have always been happy to listen.

It's just now people are starting to word things in such a way that it's not just giving suggestion anymore.

Rather than it being 'What do you think HQ?' it's now 'This better happen or people will be pissed off/It means you're racist or disablist/You're breaking the law'.

It doesn't matter what the purpose of mumsnet it when it comes to misogyny or racism. There are boundaries around acceptable speech in any public forum and it is up to the administrators to ensure that is upheld. Mumsnet have no problem recognising that on matters that pertain to rape myths, homophobia, etc etc...

It also matters if a forum marketing itself as a 'support' to parents becomes insensitive to those parents most in need of support. That's false marketing and is rather disingenuous.

Queenbean said it well.

I think it's more a question of consistency - if MN needs to moderate, one would hope there's some clear guidelines for all staff to follow on when and how to intervene.

I think this has all been touched on before on previous threads, and it was established that they hadn't. But other posters have a far better grasp of it all than I do and I don't want to pose as an unofficial spokesman for the MN disability lobby just because I seem to be the only one here.

I'm sure someone will come along with a much better knowledge of what was asked and answered by who and when.

Would the users demanding this training then get to dictate what training HQ then did go on? 'No we don't think that training covers enough of what we think it should you need to do more'. I don't know enough about this to know if training is standardised across UK or not.

Interesting thread.

How do you know they haven't already been on diversity training and don't just disagree with you?

Mistress

That's fab if it's true.

Nerr

Of course it's up to them. But we're at liberty to ask for things or suggest things. It's one of the best aspects of MN that they do listen to MNer input.

I agree with Milk, it's up to Justine and MNHQ to decide what training they go on. If they want to go on diversity training (or they may have already done some) that's fine but it's not up to the users of the chat forum to demand it.

Manumission - it's not that I'm opposed to the idea of MNHQ taking diversity training, I'm opposed to the idea that posters on here have any say in the matter whatsoever.

I actually think I remember HQ saying they were getting advice from a charity organisation about disablism.

I'm not 100% on the ins and outs of it but there was definitely something said about it on another thread.

Milk, Nerr

You see, to my ears, the possibility of diversity training sounds like a really easy step compared to thrashing out exact definitions of disablism. That's partly why I'm so surprised to see the notion so opposed.

You aren't on your own thisjustin