Langcleg is vindicated

I knew someone who sneezed like this...

Choo, choo,choo,choo,choo.choo

For about 10 mins

Is deacon being rude?

I feel deacon may be being rude

🤣

Well now we all know what sneezes are...

There was Miss Popoff of Rentaghost, I think.

Nadia Popov, who teleported when she sneezed! I’d completely forgotten.

I don't generally consider there to be "male" or "female" posting styles, but then again there were OPs a few days ago in FWR about "women belong in the kitchen" and have "hairy vaginas" which tbh I would class as male content if not style.

Oh, I remember that thread - is that the one who said all feminists are stinky or something?
If so, yeah kind of gave self away there!
I got told to shut up and go iron his shirts which just made me laugh

I agree there is very little logic to all this stuff. It went a long way without it though. It was also allowed to damage children's lives, influence policy (in back room deals, as we discovered) and shove safeguarding aside. It is quite liberating when the veil falls away and you see the manipulation in pursuit of bankrupt selfish interests for what it is.

The knowledge I have gained from LangCleg and others on this board about safeguarding and coercive control gave me self belief and courage when dealing with a safeguarding issue in an organisation. Whilst most were being kind and getting groomed or manipulated, what I had learnt let me see clearly what was happening and deal with it appropriately and without taking personal offence, grey rock and all that.

If posters have to pretend, for example, that a person with a male user name with a very male posting style isn't a man so as to not get deleted/a strike towards being banned

People having"male" user names, doesn't necessarily mean they're a man!
Plus, actual women get told they must be men too.
Not quite gettng what you mean by "men's posting style" either?
What is a woman "supposed" to write like?

There's not a lot of logic to it Susan.

Excellent post red

I bloody miss her.

I concur BabyItsAWildWorld.

LangCleg's views on safeguarding were clearly too hot to handle.

And the ban was over a misunderstanding, though Lang's points were very poignant at the time.

Spinster.xyz is a safeguarding friendly place btw.

Views such as believing that (any specific trans woman) are still a man aren't tolerated though. Not logical to say that views are tolerated which will possibly leading to a strike for disabled autistic people if they take the post logically and at face value.

Also some viewpoints should not be tolerated...(eg any that think terrorism or CSA are ok)

Logic also dictates that Lang's view that coercive control training for moderators were not tolerated.

Post from mnhq above does not make any sense at all to someone who may be autistic.

RedToothBrush I agree with everything you say and haven't posted on FWR for ages, partly because of this and partly because I don't log in that often and by the time I do, I don't have anything to add to the - pretty much always - interesting, robust and thought-provoking discussion.

I do appreciate the fine lines that MNHQ are treading. I do appreciate why they decided to create a specific 'guidelines for trans posts moderation' document. I do appreciate that it must sometimes be easier to delete a post then stand up to pressure.

BUT

If posters can't name reality, then what on earth is 'moderating' trying to achieve? If posters have to pretend, for example, that a person with a male user name with a very male posting style isn't a man so as to not get deleted/a strike towards being banned, what is driving the moderation?

Of course moderation should be bound by external legal frameworks, but its central purpose on a discussion forum should be to facilitate debate. Of course there should be 'rules' about personal attacks, racist/homophobic/transphobic content etc, but for what reason is the bar for 'transphobic' set so much lower than any other potentially offended group?

And as ever, how can a discussion forum make parent's lives easier if it forbids, obscures or obfuscates issues of safeguarding, grooming, age of consent, medication for minors etc etc

Don't know what the answer is, but I also miss LangCleg.

I'm generally a lurker on FWR, I rarely post, but it seems to me from MNHQ's replies here, like the articulate and knowledgeable women of FWR are being scolded (naicely, of course) for not being naice - which the responses themselves make out as being a moveable feast (or a set of frantically galloping goalposts).

P/S. Personally I can't think of anything naicer or more ladylike than sharing some lovely recipes, unless perhaps Mums ought to be sharing some lovely nappy-folding techniques?

we really don't suspend accounts of genuine users without good reason, and without being in touch with them several times before we ever get to that stage.

This is laughably untrue.

Tbh i found her infinitely patient! Didn't usually get derailed or bogged down in arguing the toss (which is my natural inclination), always brought the argument back round to key principles.

I found it genuinely educational, as i don't have a safeguarding background, and it's certainly not something that's always intuitive.

I've often found that the people most passionate about their work or activism, the most committed, the hardest-working, the totally reliable ones, the ones everyone turns to -- can be irritable or dogmatic.

That's partly because they are so driven they haven't got time for trivia, and partly because they are exhausted by the amount of work they do. And usually, they are too busy to suffer fools gladly.

So it seems natural to me that someone as committed to child safeguarding as LangCleg, in a world that throws children as well as women under the bus, might not be the most sweetly patient when she's trying to explain important things online.

Fine by me. Just keep on doing that good work.

"Poor Mr Pop Off" was an Enid Blyton story, iirc....

Not quite as mild as 'yawn' which I believe Rufus was deleted for (can't recall if it was Rufus, sorry if I've maligned you, pal!)

Nah, wasnt me

But i was a yawning reindeer for a while, that’s probably it 😀

Laughing my arse off at the 'pop off' being used as an example of chasing people off. IIRC, that phrase was in one of the posts I was deleted for, and it's possibly the mildest thing I've ever been deleted for, or indeed said on the board and was in response to a poster who wouldn't stop trying to get me to answer them and couldn't respect that I had no intention of engaging. Not quite as mild as 'yawn' which I believe Rufus was deleted for (can't recall if it was Rufus, sorry if I've maligned you, pal!)

I've managed to never tell anyone to fuck off, though, which is a sterling bit of self control on my part, which anyone who reads my appalling sailor's vocab will appreciate. Pop off. Still laughing.

And I will stop there, as my inclination at this moment is to say something ever so slightly unladylike.

Indeed, and we are all thinking the same. As I said, it's one thing talking about certain behaviours, but there is nothing as effective as watching them in action.