dear mn hq why are so many disablist threads being left up

[Samcro]

one today for instance and mn hq post
"We don't think that this thread is disablist, it is a valid discussion that we don't think should be shut down. "

yet it has obviously been reported.
cause hurt and upset
how is that making life easier(or better) for the sn community`?

or this message from mn hq
That CBeebies is just far too PC
Thread deleted
Message from MNHQ: Thanks so much for all the reports about this.

Although there has been some interesting debate and discussion, we do agree that the OP and some of what ensues is disablist, so we have decided to delete.

how can these be interesting debates??
\not long ago mn hq said that they were going to be quicker dealing with this stuff
what happened??

If MNHQ can find the post that Jason has referred to, surely they can find their post?
Not so we can be witch hunty about it, but so it can be explained clearly why so many of us took issue with it and MNHQ can see how to improve things in future threads where disablist posts are an issue.

HQ can you confirm that no action has been taken against confusious?

It doesn't matter if you don't becuase i can screenshot the post history showing they are still posting. It just helps when people are helpful.

Seeing the op of that post again, it's obvious that it's goady, as all the comparison posts clearly show.

Inadvertently perpetrating the nonsense is just as damaging as deliberate as deliberate goadiness, though.

I really don't won't to get caught in another debate with MNHQ about intent.

I'm hoping I'm wrong but I get the distinct feeling that mnhq are going to try to wait out the outcry over the 'downsvautism' reply.

Maybe hoping that that weak post of 'We didn't mean it like that you got it wrong' would do the trick.

I really do love you MN. You have been a good friend over the years and nnhq have always had my respect and trust that they would do the right thing.

So I do want to see the post again now we know they can get it up, so we all know what it said exactly and can see if we did get it wrong.

An explanation of what mnhq actually really meant by it would be great too.

I think it would be worthwhile putting back up the MNHQ response to this thread so people are not jumping to conclusions about what was actually said. MNHQ might also like to take the opportunity to clarify their position on what was written on their behalf.

I didn't know it was on yesterday!!!!!!

I have 2 days to catch up on!

This sin't the eastyedners thread is it.....

It's long running with a crap plot

Oh man, I've read through all of this, gradually building up a picture of what I wanted to contribute at the end, and BAM it's turned funny with an Eastenders mess-up!

I think akk is trying to point out that there are many different view-points and experiences of autism. Some are valid, some are not (just the view-points, all the experiences are valid obviously). And that this huge mix-pot of different autistic profiles, experiences, and view-points makes debate hard to moderate, especially as many lay people are behind the times when in comes to how to define and diagnose autism, and the challenges it brings with it.

BUT that adds to the problem. If people are behind the times the best way to catch them up is to be clear and succinct about what is and isn't correct/acceptable.

No, you're wrong, that's disablist, this is correct, we can't propagate your misconception here, DELETE and people will catch on quick.

Oooh well maybe, it's an interesting debate, we all come from a different place on it etc. Those ways of communicating aren't exactly wrong but it fuels the fire of the whole diagnosis being debatable in the first instance. And it is isn't. It's a recognised disability, end of. No one cares who's DS is the most disabling do they? And people with DS do face more challenges than other, but the point is that that isn't the point!

No, you're wrong, that's disablist, this is correct, we can't propagate your misconception here, DELETE and people will catch on quick.

Perfectly put.

Oops, meant to say And SOME people with DS face more challenges than OTHERS

MNHQ are you actually going to discuss this issue with us, or just keep trying to dig yourselves out of that hole.

Talk to us, listen to us. We know what we are fucking talking about but you are not giving us a chance.

I think, though, there has to be a balance in approach.

Whilst there are people unfairly having to continually defend a proper diagnosis of Autism, there are people, like myself, whose DC have had additional needs that don't fit a firm diagnosis (confirmed by professional reports) and we have to defend not 'pursuing' a diagnosis which is would inappropriate for our child, to totally unqualified people who think they can practically diagnose your child just by spending a very small amount of time with them. The fact that it can be incredibly difficult, just to be listened enough, to to be referred for assessment compounds this issue.

Having an almost opposite perspective, in some ways, has made me feel like I am coming to these issues from the other side when these issues should not be about sides. This is about prejudices and people thinking they know better about disabilities and additional needs than people who live with them.

Spinnaker I can almost guarantee you that if people were posting offensive comments about your DC's 'lack of diagnosis' (for want of a better phrase, sorry, brainfog, not intentionally trying to be offensive if it is) and your inability to obtain one, it would be deleted if reported as so.

I really don't know Alice. Just going from experiences in real life which is a lot like here in ways.

Sorry that doesn't make any sense and doesn't read at all like I want it to. MNHQ feel free to delete my latest comment. I'm off to bed.

I got what you meant, I think, Alice and wasn't offended by it.

Spin, I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean.
With all of our DC there is a point before an appropriate diagnosis has been made, if indeed one can be made. Even during that time, when our DC have an undiagnosed SN, we still have a right to not read comments about our DC being horrible, or have other posters suggesting that we are crap parents. If an appropriate diagnosis cannot be made, but the child still has SN, the same stands.

On MN, a massive parenting forum, there is no room for grey areas, this matter has to be black and white.
ASD and other invisible disabilities must have the same level of MNHQ backup as other disabilities.

If there was a wheelchairs on buses thread right now, I don't believe MNHQ would be making the same judgment that they did about ASD on the labelling thread. There would be no comments about "well, this particular person can walk for a short distance" or "on a good day this person can walk fine, so we need to find a balance to take into account that not all wheelchair users need the same level of wheelchair use".
That would be utterly offensive bollocking bollocks.
As it is offensive bollocks to apply judgement wrt autism, which is known to be a disability.

PigPig I don't disagree with that at all. It is more when people very voraciously defend having to 'pursue' diagnosis it feels very alienating to me because of my own experiences.

That must be difficult, but with all due respect, I'm not sure how that relates to MN's stance on autism?

Just that I think there are nuances. As explained earlier although I might have misread the OP's post on the labelling thread, I did so because I related part of it to my own experiences. Posts on this thread, talking about seeking diagnosis being the only responsible thing to do, made me feel alienated, in some part, due to this idea being innapropriately spouted at me in the past, although I can understand the validity of this in a context other than my own and in this thread IYSWIM.