Thread 16 Starmer - Mad World

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5251589-thread-15-starmer-nolite-te-bastardes-carborundorum?page=40&reply=141533067

Very true: those with options will go, those without will stay

Like others, I really do think you need to evidence this please.

I imagine at least three of my family members have received this special invite from Trump. I think they will tell him where to shove it.

So far as it might matter - which is no doubt nil - the MNHQ warning has nothing to do with me.

I know that the denizens of these threads like to make oblique (just about) reference to occasional visiting critics and suspected lurkers, which seems to include me, but frankly I couldn’t give a shit.

I enjoy chuckling at the one-eyed pro-Labour stuff that gets posted on here. I only post when the urge is irresistible. And I’d never whinge to MN.

@LilyMumsnet that's a very unfair comment to make about this thread. If names were named, then you would be quite right to say that we have been breaking TGs, but that hasn't happened, has it?

Other threads and posts have been referenced, but no names have been mentioned and no specific threads or posts linked to.

So for another poster to report this thread (which must have happened to generate your post) means that they've been scouring MN to evidence 'foul play'.

Like others, I'd like some clarification from you about what, exactly, has been against TGs here. Other than offending some of those who don't like this, and the other threads, we post on.

Another one who wants clarification @LilyMumsnet

I've not trawled through the entire thread but I don't recall anyone mentioning by name a poster on another thread

I've alluded to a poster on another thread who keeps on trying to tag me and others but a) didn't name them won't give them that pleasure and b) only in the context of saying that I always scroll on by never read their posts

Is commenting on the tenor of discussions not allowed? Is that the problem?

Oh @Rummly! Last time you posted on this or the previous thread, you engaged in decent conversation and discussion. For which I respect you. I disagree with your politics - as you do mine - but always happy to have constructive, respectful debate.

And yet, here you are again, back with your sneery tone.

one-eyed pro-Labour stuff is unfair to the posters on here. As you well know, not everyone who posts here regularly is pro-Labour.

... but I do respect you for saying that you don't report. (Although if there really was an issue that's against TGs, then I'd expect you to do so!)

Tbf if you had a problem you’d say it in the thread. I can’t imagine you just reporting something in the thread you didn’t like.

Actually, I genuinely do think it's a sign of MN's drift to the right that people on this thread are viewed as rampant socialists. I , and a few others, have commented that we feel like outliers as being definite self avowed (and proud) socialists.

Adding to the general bafflement at @LilyMumsnet 's comment. It's almost as if someone wants to silence us.

I'm not sure I'd class myself as a rampant socialist. I would like more of a mixed economy than we do have now

Fucks sakes, the LD's won an additional 60 seats at the last election (not that you'd know that from media coverage) - but not everyone on here voted for Labour!

Maybe "they" don't like all the cat/dog/flower pictures

Sorry, but what I wrote is just not sneery.

More to the point - and I don’t want a to-and-fro about it - what is often said on here about posters’ comments elsewhere on MN and about politicians and others who are disagreed with, is every bit as critical, dismissive or rude as I ever am.

I didn't think it was you @rummly .

I'm quite insulted that anyone might think I voted Labour

I clicked laugh and then thought you might think I was being sarcastic. Which I wasnt.

Posters slag us off on other threads, without naming us. Is that against the rules?

One rule for one ...

sneery
/ ˈsnɪərɪ /
adjective
contemptuous or scornful; inclined to be dismissive

From:
“Collins English Dictionary — Complete & Unabridged” 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

Something like this has happened before. A whole thread got pulled because we were being "unwelcoming" to someone who actually turned out to be a troll.

I am pissed off. The nastiness that is posted on MN and is allowed to stand, yet we get told off for...what exactly is unclear.

See? An outbreak of squabbling has occurred!

I did say we have occasional intrathread bickering...

But maybe now is not a good time?

That’s a fair description of most comment on these threads about unfavoured posters, politics and politicians!

Doctor heal thyself!

Likely that as the MN Mods get older they get more right wing.

Also MN is a commercial site. Fuck the posters, don't scare the advertisers.