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?

Giantbanger Oh for heaven's sake! Getting your username wrong was an autocorrect failure. I didn't 'accuse' you of anything. I apologised immediately. Yet you're still going on about it?

Butchy You're so right. After a visit from gcs yesterday, my best reading glasses have gone awol. Am hoping they're somewhere under the detritus. No need for a lobotomy.

MarDhea Yes that’s often how these threads go. People getting worked up over banning things and freedom of speech when all that’s actually happening is that something is pointed out as potentially racist. Or, viewed as racist by a substantial amount of people.

I guess it was mumsnet’s choice as to whether they wanted to change their guidelines. People are still free to use the phrase, nothing is being taken away from you.

Autocorrect from giantbanger to gangbanger?

You type the most interesting words.

I'm not afraid to express my wonder at how little many Brits know of what Oliver Cromwell did in Ireland for example, the cruelty of colonial rule, how native Catholics had no rights to education or political rights for so long, the horror and causes of the famine or the roots and repercussions of the rising in 1916, the war of independence or anything to do with Irish history tbh. It was shocking to me as I grew up and learned about it but even more how it was hardly acknowledged in my London schooling.

Saying that I came across the phrase when I was at school, not in history but in English, the etymology I sourced (in a dusty library) referred only to the Dublin Pale MarDhea - it was the one you referenced I think, and all that went with it and I did know then it wasn't a term I would use but also realised most people saying it probably wouldn't look into the root of the phrase so probably weren't trying to be bigoted.

It being part of the guidelines in that context though, is insensitive imo.

Giantbanger Oh for heaven's sake! Getting your username wrong was an autocorrect failure. I didn't 'accuse' you of anything. I apologised immediately. Yet you're still going on about it?

Tbf, Bluntness took the theme and ran with it. . I think the post has been deleted.

In essence Bluntness said my user name, as Giantbanger, was offensive because it had been incorrectly typed as Gangbanger and that could be triggering and awful and all kinds of things and I should change it forthwith.

I won't be.

Just saw on the BBC about the burning of a Grenfell Tower model with brown cut-out people being burnt as part of bonfire night

Haven't seen that, but WTF is wrong with some people

I was using 'banning' as short hand. I dislike the restriction of language - is that better?

I can see the case for 'restricitng' some words of phrases but the case against 'restricting' this particular phrase is intellectually sloppy.

You say I am getting 'het up' you say - I just posted about how discussion is good, freedom of speech is important and I will now add a little Voltaire "I disagree with what you say but would defend to death your right to say it."

I enjoy the discussion and the debate that is why I'm on MN. If I got het up I wouldn't do it.

The burning of anything like that is completely abhorrent and should be condemned. Effigies on bonfires, even historic figures like Guy Fawkes, make me deeply uncomfortable.

Oh that's interesting I've been deleted. So an escalation in process. Giving it but can't take it. Hmmm.

Incidentally 'het up' to heat something up. Do you want me burnt at the stake?

See now this is where and why I get concerned. I read the deleted post by @Bluntness100 and thought nothing of it. It has been deleted.

So things aren't banned are they? It seems they are.

In essence Bluntness said my user name, as Giantbanger, was offensive

That's not remotely true. I specicfically stated neither name offended me. In a way that could not be misconstrued. As in. " neither name offends me"

I said it could be deemed offensive if misconstrued. And would you change it. So I assume you reported it?

Thank you downthestrada. Your support is appreciated.

It's clear from the number of posters on this and other threads, who spoke in support of our request, that most MNers understand where we're coming from. There is a persistent minority who do not and do not want to, as there is in any society. They are not the majority, thankfully.

Who here is saying anyone should be burnt at the stake?

It's clear from the number of posters on this and other threads, who spoke in support of our request, that most MNers understand where we're coming from

This is also untrue and very unfair to the many Irish people who have posted on all the threads disagreeing.

Or have they too been reported?

Not one example of the racist use of ‘beyond the pale’ has been given.

No evidence exists to connect the phrase to the Irish Pale; and what evidence there is points away from that as the origin.

This thread has shown that the phrase is innocuous to ordinary people in the Republic and in NI.

The phrase is perfectly common in media in the Republic.

But let’s make a jolly big fuss.

Ohh a majority? I think - but can't be arsed to check - more individual posters said they weren't bothered by the phrase.

Banning the phrase and the arguments put forward by Giantbanger are about defending the rights of the minority. Any democracy should NOT pander to the rights of the majority. She makes some very valid points that you agreed with.

I do agree strongly with minority rights - when the arguments aren't sloppy.

Make your mind up MarDhea your arguments are all over the place.

Thanks for that perspective, LadyRochford. Yes, I think the patchy historical coverage in the UK educational system (or the English national curriculum, at least) has a lot to answer for in terms of shaky Anglo-Irish relations. It seems bizarre to me that parts of the UK don't know the history of other parts of the UK (i.e., NI). I appreciate it when British people realise the gaps in the history they've been taught and find out for themselves.

They're like playground bullies kicking their heels in the dust and sulking that it's "not fair" after a telling-off. Let them. All because MNHQ agreed with us that it was appropriate to amend their talk guidelines and remove a phrase with racist connotations.

I can't speak for everyone else obviously, I'm just speaking for myself - I'm not a playground bully, I was genuinely interested in why it's OK to knowingly offend some groups in society even if after being told it is offensive which is what the thread was about in the first place.

Absolutely MarDhea, I can't remember the thread but another MNer (Scottish) was filling me in on the Highland Clearances fairly recently. I didn't know that much, certainty not from school.

@Bluntness100

The phrase doesn't offend me but I don't think it's appropriate to be in MNHQ talk guidelines

Many more Irish says the same. MNHQ have now agreed & remover this.

By all means count how many Irish people said it was appropriate to be in talk guidelines

Yes! I agree that's another powerful example, LadyRochford - the Highland clearances were truly awful in dismantling a whole way of life and inconveniently Gaelic culture. I'll take a look for that thread as I'd be interested in reading the discussion.

VerbeenaBeeks - I think the other side was doing the bullying you were being bullied.

In relation to the history - most pupils get an hour of history a week and it stops being compulsory at 14. We are the only country in Europe that does not make history compulsory to at least 16. Most European students study it to 18. Its a disgrace.

As to British atrocities not covered in the national curriculum errr most of them. It's not just the Irish and the Scottish - Peterloo is not covered either. Although the numbers involved are not comparable.

I was genuinely interested in why it's OK to knowingly offend some groups in society even if after being told it is offensive which is what the thread was about in the first place.

The response seemed to be that the poster didn't accept that her username could possibly be offensive or inflammatory.

Despite the briefest swatch at Twitter suggesting quite the opposite.