MNHQ .. Can we talk about disability bashing?

[Brownsugarshortbread]

Over the years i have posted on and enjoyed MN.
Sadly there seems to be a growing culture of it being okay to have a go at disabilities, those who claim DLA and those who's children have 'invisable' disabilities such as ADHD and ADD.
The terms 'freak' and 'scrounger' have been batted around and comments from some posters IMO certainly boarder on harrassment and discrimination.

When certain posts or posters have been reported, some have been removed, yet a lot haven't.

And while I agree with free speech, these types of comment or reaction to these comments, are not an education for those bigoted posters. Nor do those whose lives are touched by disability wish to be used to educate those posters.

Disability Harassment

is unwanted behaviour based on disability,
impairment or additional need. Such behaviour may include comments that are patronising or objectionable to the recipient or which creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for people with disabilities. Disability harassment includes inappropriate reference to disability, unwelcome discussion of the impact of disability, refusal to work with and exclusion of people with disabilities from social events or meetings.

@LeninGrad

I know Justine, but I'm sure you do actually want to be coherent

Look at the primary ethos of the site, supporting parents for parents who want support and who want to be supportive, start there and weed out the dross, it's obvious when it's deliberate and inflammatory. You have acted quickly in some sections and it's very noticeable that it stops it straight away.

Weeding is a very dangerous game and we don't do it lightly, before you know it, you're pulling up all the flowers (to stretch the metaphor to breaking point!)

I need to go and do the Amy Chua chat now but will be back in a bit.

I don't think it is fair though to compare mn to fb, fb has loads of really sick groups and pages, mn only has a few trolls and bigots. also mn wouldn't allow a thread like that.

@Shoesytwoesy

"but we don't need to be coherent." sorry Justine but what does that mean?

Sorry that should say "do need to be coherent". Sorry for my incoherence!

Aitch - Really am NOT accusing MN of being "disablist", as you put it. The comments posted aren't written by MN. And, yes, I am very aware of MN's track record with parents of children with SN (I am one of them). So, this isn't in any way accusing MN of being "disablist". But really wondering how effective a simple delete is in stopping these people from returning / or going elsewhere and regurgitating this abusive attack on those who can't defend themselves.

If you saw it in the street, you would report it to the police. This isn't a matter of simple "moderation" to be done in house on somebody who is just insensitive / impolite. (And I am ignoring the fact that some of your own words could be interpreted as offensive by some people). If MN had a post that was deemed offensive enough for their own moderator to delete, considering that they don't want to delete things that are simply comments that some people don't want to see, then do they actually take further action if they are able to identify the actual source?

well, mnhq have asked posters to change their names in the past and it's suddenly been a big 'freedom of speech' issue on here and nothing is changed... so i think the tone is set by the posters tbh, lenin.
you can't have it both ways. some of those posters will be arseholes, and must be given their chance to explore their arseholishness (and hopefully repent it).
i see a 'dh says i throw like a spastic' thread in active convos, is this one of the ones?

Do you mean she shouldn't have used that thread title Lenin?

Tess: "If MN had a post that was deemed offensive enough for their own moderator to delete, considering that they don't want to delete things that are simply comments that some people don't want to see, then do they actually take further action if they are able to identify the actual source?"

good question. why didn't you ask that when you had the opportunity, rather than link to an absolutely repellent FB site where people were ptsl at the panorama report clips and where disabled children are described as 'surplus' and then say "So having seen this, how do Mumsnet and FaceBook compare in the having principles and morals stakes?"

meh. i don't think that thread is so bad, lenin. certainly wouldn't merit zapping. perhaps HQ should asterisk the title, though, they can do that.

i don't like the heavy-handedness of zapping i think, but do think that perhaps single words could be targeted. although... does that get us into scunthorpe territory? hmm. not sure.

Butdo you think she shouldn't have used that title? Because, as with the post that used an offensive term just as a means of drawing attention to the cynical voyeuristic nature of some TV programmes about disability, I would think it was a very bad thing to sanitise the site by removing certain words even when they are used to question offensive attitudes. And I do think that some of the (quite understandable) sensitivity around discussions about disability can very easily get to the point where it is obstructing discussion

fwiw, I think MNHQ get it about right, and although the minimal-rules style of the site entails an exercise of discretion on their part that inevitably brings the odd wrong-call with it, they seem to do pretty well at an almost impossible job.

Well, on this thread at least it has got to the point where I literally feel apprehensive about saying what I think, to the point where it is hard to engage with the discussion. I also think that the reaction to yesterday's thread where a man harrassed and assauulted a woman in bed was very problematic. People were posting attitudes to rape with I and many others would disagree with, but I felt that the labelling of them as trolls and the pressure to delete was overbearingly suppressive of discussion, really quite censorious.

Really thready?
On this thread you feel apprehensive?

I thought this was quite an interesting discussion.

i certainly feel apprehensive, pag. having already been told off by Tess that some of my own language on here could be taken as offensive by some. it's very 'shut down discussion' tbh, makes me want to go and play on lapin's rick astley thread. but i do think we are talking about soemthing important.

didn't you see the wink, swc? nevertheless, now that you have taken umbrage at my poking fun at you, i should say that i have definitely seen MNers take offence to cretinous in the past, likewise moron. under the zapping hard line they would go, i take it, because they are offensive to some?

rather demonstrates my point, i think.

can you explain your last sentence, though? am i not allowed an opinion on this thread unless i have a disabled child?

Awww, that is a shame.

But it highlights the difficulty. I love language. I hate banning. I would prefer stuff stand - I have never ever reported anything other than adverts etc.
But I hate the goading, taunting tone of some posters who know exactly what they are doing.
They use threads to just be vile and the low level stuff is so hard for some parents...

I should just be able to ban wankers. Mumsnet : for parents by parents, no wankers. It would be great