To not feel the need to kick, cut, or punch to get my point across?

[azuretriune]

Or am I just being precious/humour impaired? (For those just tuning in, this has to do with the recent spate of violent thread titles.)

Jelly there are, as you rightly point out, many forums where this is deemed acceptable and taken in the spirit it is intended. It may offend you and that's fine.

It's obviously not up to you to decide that MN isn't one of those forums. Forums grow organically and are a reflection of the views of their dominant (usually majority) members.

All this navel glazing about what MN is or isn't is pointless really.

You live within your boundaries jelli and good for you - but guess what, you don't get to judge others for drawing their own boundaries as to what's acceptable.

Speaking in exhausted exasperation or emotional outrage on an anonymous Internet forum doesn't cross them for me. I would rather try and help someone who's partner was fucking their friend than pull them up for their terminology, thanks.

This place is fuck-all like reddit or 4chan, and you know that.

Urgh, whose not who's. Stupid phone.

I dislike it. The cheating husband title was awful but what the wife had been through was so much worse that you could understand why she typed what she did.
I also dislike the double standards that a man would be given a very rough ride for using equivilent terminology.

I completely agree with you.

I can sort of understand individual posters posting it out of frustration, but I think HQ allowing it to stand (or making laughably pointless edits) is the absolute height of hypocrisy.

MN HQ support campaigns by 'End Violence Against Women' and against violence in schools. Yet they let posts like that stand. And it's not just the OP, it always descends into 'funny' posts competing to suggest the most hideous violence 'smash his dick up with the baby monitor' etc. It's not just posts between people partners either. A lot of the posts about misphonia are similar. Somebody who chews loudly deserves to be stabbed. I saw another one the other day laughing about how an annoying colleague should have her head slammed repeatedly in a door.

Really, for Mumsnet to position itself as anti-violence then tolerate this sort of stuff without comment on their forums makes them look sanctimonious and hypocritical.

I don't think its the erm... charmingly direct tongue in cheek thread titles which are new.

It's the pissed off hunnie bunnies with nsoh.

I had a boyfriend once who threatened to kick me in the cunt and stamp on my stomach if I turned out to be pregnant. that was actually traumatic.

the same phrase on the internet as part of a bigger and distraught or overwrought picture? i would focus on that bigger picture, not how people express themselves, or i simply wouldn't open the thread!

I tend to cringe/flinch a bit when I read any flippant use of quite violent stuff towards other people. No idea why as I'm not particularly sensitive about anything else really.

There was a trend amongst people to say "makes me stabby" (for "it annoys me") and I used to cringe at that.

But yes, I do hate thread titles that are like "AIBU to punch this woman in the throat" or similar. I'm sure there are better ways to phrase it but I think it's the kind of thing people should self-censor rather than be banned or deleted for.

People being offended by the titles isn't a new hun thing. There's been titles like these changed loads of times in the past for not being in the spirit of mumsnet or something or other.

What I don't understand is people on the thread posting that they find the title triggering (fucking hate that word anyway)

DON'T OPEN THE THREAD THEN YOU LOON!

Honestly they should be banned for not being capable of using the internet properly.

Ta dah! I knew this thread would appear... (polishes crystal ball while looking extremely smug)

I have no idea what to say, really. I can't say I've ever seen one of these titles and felt offended, but I can also see how it could be regarded as hypocritical. I think in the majority of these posts, the OP is at their wit's end/distraught/distressed, and is probably typing without thinking clearly. They just need to get the problem out.

I'm in two minds. No, it's not the greatest use of language and absolutely can be construed as offensive (and hypocritical) - on the other hand, there is a need for some empathy and understanding when an OP feels so overwhelmed that they are struggling to express themselves without resorting to 'expressive language'.

Aqua the question is about the tittle not the content. Whether the thread is opened or not is immaterial.

Next they'll ban swearing.

If you find the title triggering, why the fuck would you open the thread?

While I'm not offended by any of this I do second the "if a man said..." opinion.

You get little outbreaks of nasty titles.

Like most fads, it's short-lived though unpleasant whilst it lasts.

What exactly does it 'trigger'? I've read threads with very mild, innocuous titles, only to burning up with rage five minutes later!

I disagree that it's something for self censorship. I think the ball is very much in HQs court. I don't see how you can position the site as being opposed to violence then host lots of threads which are all 'Let's all laugh at how funny the idea of extreme violence is, haha!'.

Given that apparently criticising celebrities that they might want to get commercially involved with is not in the spirit of the site I don't understand why punching in the throat or slamming a head in a door apparently is.

Precious

Well that's the thing with the word "trigger", the triggering is all in the eye of the beholder.

So I could read a thread about chocolate, and it would "trigger" me to break my diet and have some chocolate. Or more usually here someone who has experienced something unpleasant reads something related and then gets "triggered".

It's a very real thing, something to do with PTSD and I have lots of sympathy for sufferers.

However, on MN it's used as a catch all reason for shutting posters down. X can't say what she wants because Y is "triggered", when essentially Y could be a hairy handed trucker, but X is still censored.

It's a bit like refereeing a match. You either have a common sense approach or consistency within the laws, you can't have both.

Personally, I get the frustration of posters however, agree with others that it would kick off had a male posted a similar comment.

I agree with the those that have pointed out the double standard its becoming irritating, a woman cheating on her partner thread was almost a oh well dont do it again then, a woman that had been cheated on thread she was told to LTB and let all his family and co workers know, its getting beyond tiresome that theres a section of MN thats becoming a little bit men hatey

Scare so I expect you laughed out loud when your partner said that to you, how funny. Or did your wonderful sense of humour desert you at that point? Oh, a man said it, well that makes all the difference.