Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

MNHQ .. Can we talk about disability bashing?

25 replies

Brownsugarshortbread · 05/06/2011 23:58

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.

Go to post
MNHQ

RachelMumsnet · 06/06/2011 17:06

We are sorry for not responding to this earlier - it's been a very busy day but we are looking at this thread and those you refer to in this thread and will be back to you soon.

MNHQ

RachelMumsnet · 06/06/2011 18:27

Thank you all for your comments on this thread. Again, we apologies for not getting back to you sooner - we assure you we're not ignoring the thread but there's a lot of questions raised here and we do want to look at it all thoroughly and have a proper conflab about the issues raised here. In the meantime it is worth looking at the guidelines on this issue. See: Nettiquette - "We also have an extremely low tolerance for words that are offensive to those with physical or mental disabilities".

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 06/06/2011 20:57

Hi all,
Mumsnet is a discussion site. We do allow discussion of difficult subjects. So a thread saying "I can't believe my dh called me a xxxx, what do you think?" is very different from a thread saying "I think all xxx are xxxx".

It has been suggested that we have one rule re disablist posts and a different one for racist or homophobic ones but we simply don't and our intention is to treat such posts as equal. In the past we have not deleted discussions such as "AIBU for being concerned that my (white) child is in a that is 80% non white school?" and "Is it wrong of me to be worried that my child might be gay?", despite some Mnetters reporting them and thinking we should. We are, as we say in our philosophy, committed to letting the conversation flow where and when it is informative and not full of bile.

Context is very important in this regard. Where someone is asking a question/trying to work out what the appropriate response is, it would be strange to disallow the MN wisdom of crowds to take effect. Plenty of folks over the years have commented that they've seen things completely differently because of discussions like these. That is a good thing.

But of course, there are plenty of comments that we do and will delete for being simply hateful. Thank you for reporting those as it's impossible for us to watch every conversation.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 06/06/2011 21:10

@justaboutWILLfinishherthesis

"Our intention is to treat such posts as equal."

So Justine, why do you say you have a low tolerance for terms that are offensive to disabled people, but will delete all the others.

That seems to me a crying example of differentiation. If what you are saying is true, don't you think your written policy should be updated?

I'm very happy to change the wording to include disablist at the opening too (it is of course covered in the break the law clause already). We actually put the extra low tolerance line in in to spell out the fact that we don't as a rule allow people to call eachother disablist words as a regular term of abuse. For example we'd allow "He behaved like a complete and utter twat" but delete "he behaved like a complete and utter spaz."

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 06/06/2011 21:11

@justaboutWILLfinishherthesis

To clarify, Justine - if someone starts a thread saying "Should DLA be abolished?" then that's a valid topic for debate.

But if someone is using the term retard in a general sense, will you delete it or leave it?

Leave and delete respectively

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 06/06/2011 21:23

@Mamaz0n

thats exactly the point i was trying to make Pag.

Whilst i take HQ's point about the op of that thread being seemingly offended by the use of the word, there were sooo many other posts from people saying thinsg like "oh ffs grow up, its jus a word"

I think that a strong message from HQ saying "actually that term is not just a word. It is a highly offensive turn of phrase used as a form or insult and is deeply upsetting to those with Sn and their carers. or indeed anyone with more braincells than feet and as such we will be altering the thread title and deleting all posts with such terms in them"

It sends out the message, loud and clear that those words will not be tolerated. The discussion coudl still take place. she could still be told that she is married to a complet nobcheese of a man, but we wouldn't have to be offended every time we open teh page.

We considered altering the thread title in this case tbh but that would have made a nonsense of the thread and the following posts. We do realise some of you get tired of making the same old arguments, but in truth how else are you going to change people's minds and move people on? These discussions, because people speak so personally, have incredible power to inform and educate.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 06/06/2011 21:24

@Pagwatch

Part of the difficulty for Justine et al is that there is no sway of opinion.

Disability is the big breasted blonde of the 1970s - it isn't any harm making jokes, stop being a spoil sport.

So mn keep waiting for the outrage that would follow " my dh thinks I look like a paki" but the world is still finding Frankie Boyle funny.

A mean person would print off some of the threads on here and post them in 2030. Mn and many posters would be mortified.

But it is actually not mn s fault that the world does not give a shit. Were that it was so easy...

Mnetters almost unanimously were pretty unamused by Frankie Boyle though Pag...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 06/06/2011 23:45

There's 2 issues here I think and the 2 always get conflated when this or similar discussion arises:

  1. Offensive posts. We do allow people to cause offence on MN - if we deleted every post people that was found offensive we'd be deleting an awful lot of posts. At times people can be thoughtless, and rude, and ignorant without us (necessarily) deleting what they say. We believe (on the whole) in the benefits of discussion and argument more than censorship. Where someone is genuinely asking a question/trying to work out what the appropriate response is, it would be strange to disallow a conversation. Plenty of folks over the years have commented that they've seen things completely differently because of discussions like these. That is a good thing.

That said there are, of course, limits. There are plenty of comments that we do and will delete for being simply downright nasty and/or illegal.

  1. Disablist posts and the contention that we are less likely to delete disablist posts than racist/homophobic ones. As I posted earlier I just don't think this is the case - it's certainly not intentional. As I mentioned earlier in the past we have not deleted discussions such as "AIBU for being concerned that my (white) child is in a that is 80% non white school?" and "Is it wrong of me to be worried that my child might be gay?", despite some Mnetters reporting them and thinking we should.

(As a small aside I do find the notion that we at MNHQ are institutionally disablist somewhat bizarre given that (in partnership with the MN SN community) we have put an awful lot of our focus on developing content and working on campaigns in this area.)

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 06/06/2011 23:54

@Shoesytwoesy

oh yes mn hq your stance on educating is working so well.....

"The thing about these woolly liberals is that when it boils down to it, they are often quite nasty pieces of work. Always quick to point the finger, desperate to catch people out for saying the so-called wrong thing and deeply antagonistic towards anybody who dares to questions whether their way is the right way. They think they can bully people into not using certain terms or words when they have decided that such terms are now offensive. Anybody who doesnt speak how they want is accused of being a racist or what-not. It's quite pathetic really."

last post at the moment on the thread you deem so important it has to stay....
so now anyone who is offended by the word is a bully or a wooly liberal....

hmmmm this educating doesn't wrok does it, the thread just gets more offensive,

Well, I always say you can find a post on MN to back up pretty much any argument you want to make - the media does that all the time - but it doesn't make your argument true! It's no more reasonable to expect everyone to be reasonable on here, than in everyday life, IMHO. But broadly, sharing experiences do have an effect. I absolutely know to be the case this from the amt of posters who've told me that MN has transformed the way they judge other parents, particularly those parents who have children with special needs.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/06/2011 12:45

@Glitterknickaz

Oh yes, aren't MNHQ fab because they campaigned for nappies and respite Hmm

Didn't do anything about the cuts to DLA though, despite a request. Plus they let some REALLY disgusting comments stand.

Hitler wasn't as bad as all that you know, he was a vegetarian. He cared about animals. (really need rolly eyed emoticon)

Blimey that's a first! I do wonder what keeps you here if you think we're comparable to Hitler...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/06/2011 12:48

@LeninGrad

I'm not sure about the hate crime approach, just very simply people don't want to see this stuff on this site therefore I wouldn't host it. It's easy really.

But Lenin, lots of people don't want to see lots of things on MN - once you go down that route - deleting stuff that some don't want to see - you are on extremely dangerous ground from a moderation point of view. I know our moderation difficulties are not necessarily your concern, but we don't need to be coherent.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/06/2011 12:55

@LeninGrad

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

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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/06/2011 12:56

@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!

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/06/2011 14:28

@LeninGrad

Yep, I know but that is different, again given the nature of this site and the voice it gives. It's a completely different argument vs the targetted and deliberate needling.

"Targetted and deliberate needling" is actually against our rules - we would definitely warn and ultimately ban someone who was doing this, so please do report it if you see it.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 10/06/2011 11:42

Hello. Thank you all for your suggestions and comments on this thread.

We wanted to make sure we came back to you about your key concerns.

We agree that, in our Talk Guidelines, we were not as explicit as about our stance on disablist comments as we were on, say, our stance on racist comments, so we have now tweaked the Guidelines to make that clearer. Thanks for drawing our attention to this.

Generally speaking, we would, of course, routinely delete posts that contain words such as 'mong' or 'retard' but we do think context is important here. In a situation where a poster is genuinely (as far as we can tell) seeking a discussion about the offensiveness/acceptability of a certain word or phrase ? as in the "catch like a spastic" thread ? we wouldn't delete because the context is all about what's offensive, rather than being offensive - and we can all learn from that.

We understand completely what many of you are saying about how tiring/irritating it can be to "educate" the ignorant but we do still believe that engaging an ignorantly (rather than deliberately) offensive poster in discussion is better than censoring the discussion completely.

As Justine posted earlier on in this thread, "Sharing experiences does have an effect. I absolutely know to be the case this from the amt of posters who've told me that MN has transformed the way they judge other parents, particularly those parents who have children with special needs."

But we do see how our "best to educate" reply may perhaps sound patronising to those of you who've been posting on the boards for years - and that's certainly not our intention. We will work on a better way of expressing that.

Hope that makes things a little clear.

We do want to say how much we value all Mumsnetters who post in our Special Needs section and who have contributed so much to making Mumsnet such a valuable source of advice and support for any parent with a child with special needs. The last thing we'd want is for you to think we don't place as much value on your opinions and concerns as on those of other Mumsnetters - that couldn't be further from the truth.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 10/06/2011 12:03

@AitchTwoOh

what about the idea of making the deletion comment more nuanced? i think the 'possible breach of DDA' etc would be a good shot across the bows.

We could certainly have a think about that.

Have to say we all chuckled enviously at another forum the other day where the mods posted: "Reason for deletion: cheeky fucking spammer" Grin

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 10/06/2011 12:23

@Peachy

I reckon there's a forum for forum owners.

'AIBU to delete anyone who complains about our deletion speeds/'

'WWYD if some contentious author started to claim damages against your site?'

'How much wine is it OK for a mod to drink before they are technically not up to deletion?'

I think they also have special emoticons, so when i post a bum appears to signify sanctimoiuos arse; when certain others who have been discussed between myself and MN post a troll flashes on the screen. And when P&T threads appear an image of someone slapping their forehead is immediately apparent on teh screen of every employee.

I'm right aren't I? Wink

You might be. I couldn't possibly comment... Wink

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 10/06/2011 12:33

@TheNinjaGooseIsOnAMission

peachy Grin

mnhq, changing the guidelines is great but I'm not sure many people regularly read them so won't notice a change until it's pinted out to them?

Well, we're pointing out the change here, for a start.

And please take it as read that we regularly point posters to our Talk Guidelines when we're mailing them about posts of theirs we have noticed or deleted.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 10/06/2011 14:30

@Threadworm8

Can't get out of my mind now as an image of MNHQ.

Yep, that's me in the pork pie hat - obviously...

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 12/06/2011 12:41

Hello. Please can we remind you not to trollhunt on the boards. It's against our Talk Guidelines

Instead, please report any bridge-dweller suspicions/concerns to us and we will take a look. Sometimes, this takes us a while - we do like to look into these things properly. So we do ask that you bear with us.

Saying that, if you think we're being particularly slow - or might have missed your report (does occasionally happen Blush), do please give us a prod.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 12/06/2011 12:49

@Peachy

Well have reported several today.

So we are wanted to educate but responding to reports and suspected trolls takes ages, which palces us in the firing line?

Fuck that!

We have replied to your mail, Peachy.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 12/06/2011 12:57

@Peachy

Thanks you, I understand where you are coming from but equally, watch and wait changes nothing in the short term

ANd again, why so many threads at one again? I hope you check the OPs on them to make sure it's not one spawn of satan name changing?

We don't necessarily watch and wait. Wink

And do please report the threads you're concerned about - we can't look into them unless we're made aware of them.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 12/06/2011 13:03

@Mamaz0n

whilst i understand the "watch and wait" approach is in keeping with our democratic right to be innocent until proven guilty, MN isn't a court of law.

Like with a bar/pub the owner has teh right to refuse entry for any reason they deem fit.

I think if someone is persistently posting offensively - like the person i named - they should be given a warning. if they continue they should be banned.

I don't think it is good enough to just say we are keeping in an eye on it. just how vile does someone have to get before action is taken?

We never said we were just keeping an eye. "Watch and wait" isn't our only response/course of action. We're not sure where that assumption is coming from, tbh

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 12/06/2011 13:21

@Mamaz0n

That would be ideal Lenin.

No Helen I appreciate that. But it is the answer "we" seem to get most often though. Either that or the ' we aren't going to delete as we feel the thread will be a good source of education' or words to that effect 'if you find it upsetting just hide it'

both are incredibly frustrating. Especially given the over zealous pro active deletions on a certain missing child thread recently.

OK, we tend to answer "we'll take a look" when a poster is first reported to us because we mean just that - we're going to take a look to see what action needs taking (or not). Because the look-taking can take a little while sometimes, we think it's polite to respond in this way to whoever made the report, rather than leave them hanging without any acknowledgement from us. It doesn't mean we just watching and waiting.

Re the 'education' response, we've already posted earlier on in this thread that we're going to look at the way we phrase that one, as we can see that it can taken as quite patronising if you're a poster who's been on MN for a while.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 12/06/2011 13:21

@LeninGrad

And there is a mod job going...

You interested, Lenin? Grin

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread