what's this PO stuff all about? I have just read some really vile stuff on here....

[Portofino]

Women presumably who don't have a certain sense of humour, or don't agree with certain (long standing) posters being described as beige admin workers who nag their ugly husbands, who were friendless at school, wear cheap clothes, have no fun in their sad little joyless lives etc etc Literally paragraphs and paragraphs of nastiness.

This is some of the most vile and misogynistic stuff I have ever read on MN from other women. These kind of comments normally come from trolls and MRA invasions. Is this really what MN has become? Does everyone think that this sort of shit should stand? What happened to the fucking sisterhood?

I am astounded to be quite honest.

It's mainly the whole of MN, notimefors

The OP didn't cut and paste. Someone else did.

Intellectual rigour.

Was it started to 'attack' laqueen?

Or was it to say that what she wrote was cunty?

It was cunty.

She doesn't give a shit what people think, or she wouldn't post stuff like that. So I really don't get the defending her?

Very odd.

Same old fucking and old.

Yes it wasn't the OP that cut and paste laqueens posts.

Same* fucking vodka

Tell me, tell me - how were LaQ's comments cunty? Taking it from just reading the c&p'd comments they don't seem to be aimed at any posters in general? Just a stereotypical observation of people who point out the misery in everything and love being PO? If that's the case, I'd say the comments were spot on rather than cunty.

In that utterly pointless phrase, she is what she is.
My life is totally at the end of the scale to hers, being a benefit scrounger in an HA house.
But in all the vile threads about people on benefits or living on the poverty line that come up on here, I've never seen her come on and make judgement.
Anyway, bored now, you don't like her, fair enough.
It was a good thread though [busmile]

So, in summary - I've read the first 4 pages of this thread and the last 2, and it was a thread mainly to slag off and criticise LaQueen? Niiiice

DH is now asleep , I am wide awake!

I agree with amberleaf.

I'm not sticking up for her, fawning or
saying 'she is what she is' Amber I'm just struggling to see or understand how the comments that were c&p'd were so offensive or cunty especially as they weren't aimed at any poster in particular - just one person's tongue in cheek view of the stereotypical PO.

I guess this 18 page thread on something so minor (IMO) is an example of how some posters on MN get great twisted satisfaction from being PO

If someone posted something like that but giving a tongue in cheek stereotypical 'view' about lesbians or black women, even though it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, it would be called as offensive/nasty/rude etc.

Don't see how that was any different really.

Amber - taking the piss out of the type of person whose weekly highlight is their Saturday morning supermarket trip with a downtrodden husband is entirely different from being homophobic, racist or sexist. I think you being PO and blowing things out of proportion tbh

But the point is, even if it isn't directed at A. Person. It is directed at a group of people that writer feels she is in a position to look down on or judge, there lies the similarity.

Its not taking the piss. Its being nasty.

I'm not being 'PO' whatever that actually means to you, I'm calling a spade a spade.

look, this must be said... It's hard for everyone to hear, but it is about time that it is out in the open.

No-one likes a Saturday supermarket shop.

There

said it.

and to even imply that anyone does is discusting

mumsnet without inverted/extroverted/inny/outy snobbery is like doing a 69 without tongues

Yes Custardo, it has always been and will always be the way of MN probably.

I don't mind reading that sort of thing, as long as no one else minds me calling 'cunty' if I do.

If posting stuff like that is ok, then so is responding to it.

Bloody Nora, I was on that thread. If I posted anything unpleasant about anyone would someone please tell me now so I can apologise.

I have often been shouted at for being professionally offended when objecting to disablist stuff. I had quite the reputation for being a humourless cow I think.

The thread Hully started was about PO faced reporting shutting down harmless joking. Everyone has different ideas of what is funny. It wasn't about that - not to me it wasn't. It was about people reporting every little thing or chosing to be outraged about every possible situation.

The other thread I posted on (in my fairly drunken state) was where a woman whose DH dropped a cat on her. Within half a dozen posts she was called vile and accused of being cruel to her children.

The 'PO' thing IMO is about that - the gleeful reporting and abusing of anyone who posts anything that can be criticised.

I suspect a chunk of people on this thread and that thread feel exactly the same about that but now we are all supposed to divide into camps and batter each other.
I am also not at all glittery. But a bit hungover.

Professionally Offended- what Daily Mail readers call anyone who objects to racist, sexist, homophobic, disablist language. Usually in such sentences as "Some of my best friends are black- and they love it when I call them Sambo and their children play with gollywogs all the time- it's only the Professionally Offended who have a problem with that"

Po-Faced- what people call other people when they don't share a sense of humour.

I would like to point out that I have mentioned no names, not did I even link to a specific thread. The thread was not meant to be an attack on specific posters, more to ask if MN has become a place where cliques and bullies are indeed accepted.

PO/po is an unhelpful thing to call because it closes down people's ability to express their real feelings and opinions.

Reporting stuff just because you don't agree with it is silly and has the same effect.

Both are lazy ways to attempt to influence the way a discussion is going.

I hope it isn't a place here bullies are accepted. I guess cliques depends on whether you mean cliques which exclude others or cliques like the crepey clique or the nobdies which I think are completely harmless.

I have names I spot, people I like but I engage with anyone I meet on a thread as long as they seem nice enough. People I don't like I ignore.
But that is determined by how they behave - not by whether they are new or old, recognisable to me or not. Not least because people name change so often I regularly have no idea who I am talking to.

I don't think that thread was bullying or cliquey. I think it was generally a nonsense thread and your primary issue is with the comments of one poster.
Which is not a criticism of you at at all - i think you are rightly trying to emphasise that you are not trying to attack one poster.
But I think condemning everyone who posted on that thread because of stuff one poster wrote is pretty harsh.
I rarely agree with everything on every single thread. My posting on it does not mean I am in agreement with everything everyone says.
Just as I am sure that you do not whole heatedly endorse everything said on this thread.