to think MNHQ have double standards?

[JenniferJo]

If a thread is racist, sexist, homophobic or disablist then MNHQ leap in and delete offensive posts, comment on the thread and (often) delete the entire thread.

Yet ageist threads are allowed to continue for days. Doesn't seem right to me.

Why not contact them?

Have you reported the thread?

Which thread are you talking about?

I know what you just what mean about the ageism posts but I would encourage you to contact MNHQ and of course to keep reporting any and all threads and comments that you are concerned about.

Why not contact them?

Good point. I'm not sure. Sometimes I think it's better to leave controversial threads so that arguments can be "heard" and readers draw their own conclusions. They do make people think. And make us aware of how much prejudice there is out there.

But on the other hand maybe that should apply to all or none. Either let arguments be played out or delete blatant prejudice or hateful statements - but apply the same standard to all "isms".

What thread are you talking about please?

So you started a Thread instead ?

There is one particularly unpleasant thread but I'm really talking in general. I saw a few blatantly ageist posts yesterday on several threads, so I'm pondering.

I started the thread to see if others felt the same way or if it's just me that feels uneasy about double standards.

Oh fgs. Contact mn.
I'm bored of endless threads moaning about deletions and policy.

Mn is not obkigatory

Maybe just ignore then.

So, OP, you post about ageist threads being let to run, then say it's er..better to let them run. The you're not sure.

If you don't like, report.

So it's not OK to ponder and canvass opinion?

Just challenge them on the thread.

Of course it's OK to consider, just try not to say one thing in the OP then another further down the thread.

MN do it themselves in a casual way. I picked up the MN book and it has a chapter on 'the old Biddy on the bus'!! They obviously saw nothing wrong with that!

Of course it's OK to consider, just try not to say one thing in the OP then another further down the thread.

That's because I really can't work out how I feel. It's interesting to read challenges and explanations and some threads have made me think and do a bit of research about the topic under discussion. Then I go back to comment and MN have deleted the thread and I'm peeved.

But then I see statements full of hate left for days, even when I've reported them. Or MN say it isn't against their policy.

Maybe I just need more coffee.

MNHQ are inconsistent - easier not to get upset about it. Have the extra coffee!

Ah, that's quite different, OP, but would need to know what thread in particular, though the THAT etiquette would be violated.

I always challenge ageist threads I've come across, though never reported. Maybe MNHQ is seeing how the group pressure to get the ageist poster to STFU or acknowledge the ageist nature of their post(s) actually works.

I know what you mean OP. I am uncomfortable with the censorship of posts and threads.
Let them all run or delete them all.

I don't like the inconsistencies and double standards.

Maybe MNHQ is seeing how the group pressure to get the ageist poster to STFU or acknowledge the ageist nature of their post(s) actually works.

That makes sense but they don't apply that stance across the board to all prejudice. On balance I think it's better to let 'orrible threads run but to delete blatantly hateful posts within the threads.

I find the deletion policy very odd. I can't see any point in deleting unless it's a personal attack and the person attacked wants it deleted. Or unless it's illegal, or libellous or something, obviously. I was challenging ageism on a thread recently, and the discussion was actually getting interesting. Then it went. What's the point of that? Nobody learns anything.

Oh,and I really don't understand why you can't start a tread about a thread either.

You can start ATAT, but it can look rather as if one lacks the, ahem, cojones to actually post about the thread.

Sorry: "on" not "about". Bloody prepositions.