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

Do people mean diversity training? Do they mean training to develop knowledge of disabilities? Do they mean training to be able to spot disablist language?

I think people mean that when they find something offensive to them, or that they think others will find offensive, it should be deleted. Sometimes without it even being reported

Actually saucery, the original response showed just that poverty of understanding of disability and a disappointing willingness to trot out the standard unacceptable 'adjustments' (we know someone who knows someone who is disabled so We Understand).

Adjusting for disability is not something you can do here and there, in an amateur way. You have either got to really care and have a real interest in it, or you've got to get the finger out and pay for professional consultation and training regarding best practice.

Here we go again.
Diminishing the staff experience and training with 'has a deaf relative', which as you know is not the case, was not how it was put in the original discussion and is yet another example of the breathtaking rudeness exhibited by some posters on here.

Is that a line of argument that you're applying to the whole diverse group of us who think the disablism issue isn't quite fixed yet petit?

Or more of a personal aside?

Do people mean diversity training? Do they mean training to develop knowledge of disabilities? Do they mean training to be able to spot disablist language?

Diversity training? I'm sure MNHQ have done lots of training

Why are you so sure?

When MNHQ tried to assure posters they had an understanding of disability issues on one occasion, they did try to provide evidence of this. Did they mention a training course? No. Apparently someone on the staff had a deaf relative.

Diversity training? I'm sure MNHQ have done lots of training but they won't be telling you about the nuts and bolts of it so you can pick it apart.

Disablism: discriminatory, oppressive or abusive behaviour arising from the belief that disabled people are inferior to others.

I'm not sure that all posts meet this. The problem is it very easy to define when a post is well over the line, but for more borderline posts it is a tricky balance between that and freedom of speech.

Is that a line of argument that you're applying to the whole diverse group of us who think the disablism issue isn't quite fixed yet petit?

Or more of a personal aside?

Sorry- wrong emphasis.

Generalised disablism is just as unacceptable as generalised racism (for e.g.), it doesn't have to be directed at an individual (verbal attack) to be over the line.

I've been on some threads with some of the posters on here. The thing that strikes me more than anything else is that they try to make everything about disability.

You could be discussing literally anything and they will try and force a particular agenda.

I'm actually amazed that they have been pandered to for do long by the moderators of this site.

Nobody is forcing anyone to be here, and nobody cares if you leave or not, that goes for all of us, it's an Internet forum,- that's all.

I suspect though, that they have no intention of leaving, and will just continue in the same carping and complaining vein as they always do.

This is about hate speech its

This www.opendemocracy.net/lesley-abdela/democracies-free-speech-and-right-to-offend

Is an interesting read and very relevant to this rather unpleasant thread.

People have a right not to be verbally abused, have violence etc incited against them. They do not have the right to not be offended.

I'll continue to care about the issues that matter

I'll continue to remember that not every issue that matters necessarily matters to me and so it makes sense to be respectful when others in a more vulnerable position are offended and request change.

I don't think anyone would mind if you stopped engaging with the ranting, offensive posters on this thread.

Not everyone Feels The Same

Good motto for a free website with light moderation.

Oh well slender, we shall have to agree to disagree.

This thread isn't going to achieve what it wanted (unless it was a ruck?) and it will disappear into the depths of thread oblivion. I won't care a jot about that.

I'll continue to care about the issues that matter though and not continue to engage with posters who just want to rant and be offensive because it's futile.

Navy I'm not going to get into an argument with you. I'm not looking for aggression. I just made a comment that I thought might be helpful. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way.

Your 'sniping' is another person's reasonable complaint.

No, I'm talking about passive aggressive language, personal attacks, that kind of thing. Stuff that makes us go around in circles, he said, she said - that's what I meant.

I of course support anyone that wants to challenge the heart of what they are trying to achieve.

I think that is what many people have got very fucked off about. The heart of the problem has been lost in all the sniping.

I loathe the term 'cis'. I would like it banned, but that isn't going to happen. I will not stamp my feet and demand that MNHQ back up my stance on the word or I will get handy with the emailing and the Arsey thread after thread about how my rights as a woman are ground into the dirt by its use.
If I felt MNHQ had crossed a line where 'cis' had taken hold to the extent that I no longer felt comfortable here then I would leave.
So it's not 'fuck off if you don't like it', it's why on Earth stick around on one site in the whole Internet that appears to make you unhappy? I genuinely do not understand why people do that, with all the options open to them online.