What is going on with personal attacks/disablist language being left to stand?!

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

I've just seen that the term 'fucking retarded' was left to stand, and the poster who reported it was told it shouldn't be deleted.

That really shocks me and I think it's a real shame coming from MNHQ.

I saw this because the person reporting started a thread asking whether the term were acceptable or not, and it's been deleted with no explanation except that it was 'against talk guidelines'.

I know it was a TAAT (as is this), but generally, threads asking reasonable questions are left to stand for a little, with an explanation from HQ on them. I'm hoping for a better result here in Site Stuff, as it seems to me it's a pretty important question.

Are you defending a policy of not deleting insults like 'fucking retarded'? Is it now unacceptable to question that sort of thing? And does it have to do with this ongoing issue with threads about feminism - which is where the term was used, and in the context of some very nasty (undeleted) attacks on feminist posters.

Imbecile is a term used to describe persons with learning difficulties whereas thicko is a term used to describe someone who behaves in a silly way. Thicko is not a term used to describe someone with learning difficulties.

Not sure where you are getting your definitions from but 'thicko' is not used to describe someone behaving in a silly way. It is just as bad as any of the insults on this thread.

I am struggling to see how 'fucking retarded' could be anything but a personal attack, really. Or how it could be ignorantly offensive.

Yes, she may not know that 'retarded' is disablist, but she can't possibly think that it isn't an offensive term if she's using it to make an attack on someone.

...but perhaps it isn't fair to label that poster forever as racist or disablist. Delete the offensive phrase, reprimand them in an e-mail and let that poster move on.

The poster can always ask MNHQ to delete the whole post.

The point (to me, anyway) is that we're all meant to be under the same rules.

I have posted many things that make me look like a giant wanker, cos I can be, and some that make me look like an ignorant and/or offensive twit. I can't get them deleted on a whim, or edited to make it look as if I didn't say something stupid/malicious, and nor can most of us.

If we all had edit functions, fine, but this feels like favouritism.

I saw the original comment and IIRC she referred to an idea as fucking [word] rather than a person, so not really a PA but still beyond the pale disablist language.

From the talk guidelines:

Swearwords and offensive language

It's not our policy to delete swearwords (we're all adults, after all) but we do draw the line at obscenity, racist, ageist and disablist language, and wording that is truly beyond the pale.

At the very least I would expect [edited by MNHQ for disablist language]

And yes, this: The point (to me, anyway) is that we're all meant to be under the same rules.

It was an idea she was associated with someone, though. And we're not really allowed to get around the PA thing by doing that.

Either way though it should just have been deleted as soon as the first report came in.

YY.

I agree. If I called another poster 'retarded' I'd expect my whole post to be deleted. Why are exceptions made for people who slag off feminists?

I have never seen a post being 'edited' either - how wierd.

Especially leaving it with no message as to why it has been edited - surely if mnhq are all about people educating other posters about the world of special needs (as they are always telling posters on the special needs boards) then they should heed those words as well, and educate people that using such offensive disability words is not acceptable, not just sweeping it under the carpet (which has rather backfired here!)

I've never seen editing of posts for this reason. In fact I've only seen it done when someone has used real names by accident in a post. So it does rather come across as favouritism that someone was edited rather than flat out deleted. And there have always been posts that contain good and valid points alongside unacceptable content - hasn't ever made a difference before, the whole lot has to go.

That is how I feel, tendon.

I know I've lost my temper before now and said stupid things, and I understood why the whole post was deleted. It is how MN works.

The editing thing is weird.

If I call someone a cunt in the midst of my marvellous eloquent outpouring, my whole post is deleted.

Why was this post edited.
Why mnhq?

Fwiw I quite like knowing who the cunts are that use retarded as an insult. But that's just me.

The editing thing is weird to me too.

I remember when it was all fields round here, and I realise they now can do more sophisticated stuff (technical term) but letting an offensive post stand by editing a bit out is ... I don't know?

Christ! And to think I got banned for a week for calling someone smug!

I have never seen a personal attack edited out. It's beyond weird.

What happens if MNHQ don't respond to this thread? The silence is deafening.

You were banned for calling someone smug??! So that is seen as a personal attack?

I expect there will be a Senior Response in the morning.

They often don't respond at this time of the night.

I agree that the whole post should have been deleted, but I've seen MNHQ edit posts before.

I know they often don't respond that this time of night, but I started the thread a few hours ago.

I've seen them edit posts before, but it has been in the cases already mentioned - when someone accidentally uses a real name, or something like that.

But was that with offensive language, Usual, or edited posts because of identifying information (which I have seen)?

sorry - crossposted with jeanne!

How odd.

So hard as a parent of a disabled child to see those words used with such casual abandon. Hard, as my son with AS, was once called a fucking retard on public transport when he was hand circling out of excitement.