Could you explain the deletions for calling out racism please?

@Sophielmumsnet

I don't think any of us are pretending modding is an easy job on any moderated group. Nor does anyone expect perfect consistency or clarity on every occasion (unless they have no clue about what is involved).

But where bigotry threads are involved the TG seem to work against the group discriminated against by being invoked to delete challenges whilst leaving propaganda standing.

As an example I would cite the "train seat" thread. There is a post on that thread where a poster claims to have given up a seat for a disabled person who was faking it. They spoke to a guard who confirmed people commonly fake it to get seats without booking (its actually cheaper to book a seat than buy a walking stick to fake it).

I've heard that story and variants of it on other groups, sufficiently often that I don't believe it.

So I can report that post:

• You can't prove its a pack of lies, unless the PP is a PBP or on some sort of warning you are unlikely to delete it.
• If I tell the PP "bollocks" I get deleted for breaking TG
• If I say on thread that I think its a pack of lies one of our resident whiny knickers will start shouting "miss miss, C8 is troll hunting".

At the end of it I'm left as a disabled person, watching propaganda which does make my life more difficult left to stand whilst being powerless to challenge it effectively.

Dog whistle politics and propaganda are popular because they work and are hard to challenge. If you cannot take them down I think we should at least be able to doubt the veracity on thread.

Any other option is ensuring bigots retain all the advantages.

Sophie - "We do have guidelines that we follow - and we are constantly in communication as a team to try and make sure we're as consistent as we possibly can be. "

What exactly are those guidelines? Please share them with us so we also know which posts are likely to be deleted and which are not.

The inconsistency is in part explained, as always, because they respond to reports they don't monitor the entire thread. So if a "fuck off" comment happens not to be reported then they won't even look at it. I imagine that if a lot of delicate flowers report a "shrug" or "yawn" or "lighten up" comment then they might delete it just because they've had a number of reports.

That and the fact that the mods don't really seem to have consistent guidelines to adhere to .

I'm another who is puzzled.

"I am clearly not alone in wondering how to stay within talk guidelines, since quite mild challenges are deleted."

I'm just as puzzled and have said as much to MNHQ in PMs.

I am aware of dog whistle politics and racism thanks very much

That actually makes it worse.

So tell us Janey, this thread was started in site stuff talking about specific examples of bigotry on threads on racism and disablism.

So far you have try to divert the thread into discussions on some random shit happening somewhere else, generalised misogyny issues and pretty much anything to distract from the issues on the thread itself.

To get back to the point of the thread - the question remains "why does MN allow bigotry to stand whilst deleting posts calling out the bigots?".

Racism can be insidious and subliminal Janey and is all the more dangerous when it is, precisely because so many can’t or won’t acknowledge its presence.

Not the same as saying a white woman would not be a target for sexism and misogyny. I do suggest you find out about dog whistle racism- it is a "thing" and very relevant on threads like this.

“Just in case Bert doesn't come back to explain her hilariously incorrect statement that white high achieving women don't face sexism,”

Had I said that it would have been hilarious. But thankfully, I didn’t.

Here's another good read about racism but I'm guessing you'll take one look at the title and decide the author herself is racist 🙄

Actually JaneyEJones in the recent Meghan thread I didn't think you were racist. Your comments on here have proved me wrong. And yes, when it comes to racism you do need to educate yourself as you clearly don't recognise the more insidious form of it. Looking at the link C8H10N4O2 has provided would be a good start.

Here you are Janey as you seem unwilling or unable to grasp what dog whistle bigotry is all about:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

Using "borderline" terms or applying standard bigotry from a different flavour in a racist context is an entirely standard tactic. So calling Diane Abbot a typist gets the response - that it isn't racist its sexist and the same as white women suffer. Except of course its disproportionately used against BME women but posters like you derail or obscure the racism by calling it misogyny and ignoring the racial aspect.

I would have assumed you were able to comprehend this which makes me wonder why you are apparently so very keen to defend bigots rather than their targets.

I'm sure 'they' would. Misogyny and sexism is rife. Didn't you know that?

Asking Bertrand that?!

Is it a rhetorical question?