To think that if you’re told a phrase is offensive, you don’t insist on using it?

[changehere]

Yes, a TAAT. The context is that we explained to mumsnet HQ that the phrase ‘beyond the Pale’ is found eyebrow-raising by many (but not all) Irish people.

The Pale was the name given to an area of Ireland under English rule and those outside that area were considered uncivilised aka ‘beyond the pale’. This is a phrase that is only used with raised eyebrows in Ireland and certainly feels inappropriate, if not offensive, coming from an English person.

Mumsnet use it as part of their racism guidelines as in that they only ban language that is ‘beyond the pale’. Mumsnet accept the origins of the phrase. However, they insist on using this phrase to describe whether something is or is not racist.

Given the context, AIBU in requesting that Mumsnet find another phrase in their racism guidelines?

Ta1kin that's not what is being discussed here. Here it's the use of the phrase in the talk guidelines, not as a descriptor for Nigel Farage.

I thought you did not like the phrase per se?
Are you now saying that its acceptable when used in a context you agree with?

I don't like it and I've said I'd report it. But this thread is about its use in the talk guidelines here.

The Irish posters on here - did you vote for or against the removal of the blasphemy clause?

Did you vote for or against the right to offend people and to be offended?

It links very nicely with the discussion.

It doesn't matter if the phrase originally related to Ireland specifically or to the more general idea of the civilised, colonist power-holder being within the pale, and the 'uncivilised', native 'other' being 'beyond the pale'.

It's a metaphor based on an understanding of humanity which places the norms of one culture (that of the colonial invader) in a superior position and sneers at the norms of another culture (the native one) as inappropriate, unacceptable, and uncivilised.

It's not a great phrase to employ when talking about how racially charged discussions will be sensitively moderated.

Is that really difficult to understand?

But your reasons for not wanting it in the talk guidelines are not based on evidence
and your acquiescence to me using it to describe Banks and Farage show that context is all

in an English context it says more about the New Forest than it does anywhere else
so why can it not stay in the guidance ?

It's not a great phrase to employ when talking about how racially charged discussions will be sensitively moderated.

Is that really difficult to understand?

No it’s easy to understand. It’s just wrong.

Noodle
based on an understanding of humanity which places the norms of one culture (that of the colonial invader) in a superior position and sneers at the norms of another culture (the native one) as inappropriate, unacceptable, and uncivilised
Except it isn't.
The Pale purely divided areas and estates and groups
there was no "colonial invader" in the New Forest - just the king wanting a hunting park
And the Calais / Jewish examples are not colonial.
Extrapolation without evidence is not helpful

Moussemoose it really has very little to do with the discussion. The vast majority who voted, voted to remove the blasphemy clause.

Making it illegal to insult someone's faith is not the same as asking for respectful, non-offensive language to be used in the talk guidelines.

Did you honestly think they were similar things?

everything giantbanger has said. Don’t know how you have remained so polite gb (oo thers an interesting nickname !)

Free speech is the right to be offended.

When you have free speech some people might be offended. Do you ban words or phrases because they offend? Do you uphold a law that bans blasphemy because to get rid of it will mean some people are offended. The Irish people voted for free speech - good on them.

There has been plenty of evidence on this thread that the origins of the term are not offensive and not related to Ireland.

If some people in Ireland choose to only consider one interpretation of one meaning why should the phrases be banned?

I said I would report you for using it.

How is that acquiescence?

I find it offensive and will report it if I see it used.

I would like mumsnet, as they say they wish to be welcoming, to remove it, as there is a not insignificant portion of posters here who object to it.

The use of the phrase is an indicator of a wider issue of anti Irish sentiment on mumsnet which is often thinly veiled and goady. I intend to report those to HaitchQ as well in future.

I had never heard that! You definitely learn new things all the time. Thank you

I'm sure MN would ban it if its origins are clearly and specifically what you say they are - but it simply isn't.

The phrase has been applied to several countries in several historical contexts the oldest of which seems benign.

You choose to consider one interpretation or one example. You don't even seem to have the support of the majority of Irish posters.

Giant
When I see all of my and others "Beyond the Pale" comments removed I will ask MNHQ for their evidence for that decision.
Go ahead and report.

But the fact is that its an ancient phrase relating to "not one of us" which in one narrow context might be deemed colonialist

Pick your battles

There seems to be an argument propounded by some here that mob rule rules. Ie the majority trump any minority. Since when has this been what we are about either in mn or in the uk ? F that ! Aren’t we better than that? We would never have got rid of the death penalty we would never have had female emancipation we would never have any foreign aid or welcome refugees etc. So now we are back to saying if lots of people disagree with others who say something is offensive we just ignore that ? Bloody hell this thread is an absolute nightmare. Hell in a handcart if that’s what’s happening to us all.

I mean I know knowledge can be lacking in some English people, but that takes the biscuit!
its disgraceful mumsnet have kept this racist comment up by wazznme

Wasn’t wazznme saying lots of us in England have limited knowledge of Irish history? I said that of myself ! How in earth is that racist?

Wasn’t wazznme saying lots of us in England have limited knowledge of Irish history? I said that of myself ! How in earth is that racist?

I don't think its racist but it is a very poor choice of words tbh.

The comment made no reference to history, just that some English are lacking in knowledge. I read that as meaning the English are a bit thick. Yet Giantbanger has said that Irish people have been referred to as thick by the English. Seems to be it's ok to call the English thick, but not the Irish. From what I've read today this is possibly because the English have done dreadful things to the Irish throughout history and the English must be forever held to account for this.

That could be but, really, to extrapolate racism when the
Meaning was clear (if slightly obscured?) is just aggravating (literal meaning there).

Knowledge is not intelligence. The use of the word ‘knowledge’ itself made it very clear the post was about knowledge.

Perverse please quote where I specifically said that the Irish has been referred to as thick by the English. Thanks.

On another thread (or two) complaining of anti Irish sentiment.

Do you ban words or phrases because they offend?

Well MNHQ do. That’s part of their talk guidelines. If you object to that then challenge them on it. But as it stands their policy is to delete offensive language.