To Ask That MNHQ Treat ALL Posts/Posters/Campaigns Seeking To Derail & Hunt Out Any Form Of Bigotry, As They Do Troll Hunters

[RockinHippy]

The current trend has been a campaign to point out & completely derail threads with shouts of disabilsm, too often IMHO, unfounded.

Though I do feel a lot of empathy for the posters involved & know too well that disablism can exist. Plus I don't doubt they have difficult lives dealing with all that comes with DCs with SN, however I do feel what is happening currently on MN is way over the top, hypersensitive & does no one any favours, least of all the disabled & is IMHO comparable to "troll hunting" & feel it would improve many posters enjoyment of MN if MNHQ could treat this & any similarly bigot hunting posts/campaigns in the same way as they do Troll Hunters.

I should add, I am a disabled DM, of a disabled DC & as such I do not appreciate the current campaign as speaking for us all - not in my name thank you very much, its way OTT & quite frankly damaging & it has become very boring.

I have no intention if getting into any debates, I have seen enough posts to form the opinion that the inevitable stress & real life disabilist problems that can of course go hand in hand with raising DCs with SN can result in a warped perspective of others intentions. I also find it sad, that posters who should have far more empathy for people starting threads in difficult & stressful situations, might not actually word themselves very well & really don't need posters jumping down their throats for perceived bigotry that the rest of us do not see. Ive just left a thread with a prime example of that, where reference to a school looking out for "bad kids" was instantly taken to mean SN, rather than just troubled kids in all quises, very often without any SN at all, as has been our own experience with a similarly biased primary school. That is not disabilism, it is is simply a bad choice of words referring to disruptive & aggressive behaviour for a host of reasons.

I wont reply to any attacks on this post. I just think in the interest of keeping MN the welcoming, place where parents etc can ask for help & opinions related to a specific issue, that it is meant to be. That it might be helpful that all such campaigns & posts be treat in the same way as troll hunting & any grievances as regards any posting/threads be reported, rather than attacked in the frenzied & unhelpful way that seems to be happening too often of late.

Perhaps those of us who feel this way can let MNHQ know here...

Most do challenge constructively. Then they get verbally attacked and sniped at, and the frustration bubbles over. I've been polite on this thread. The responses I've gotten haven't always been polite though. I can continue to be polite, try to point out the issues, but when people demand repeatedly that you engage in their derailing sniping, it's frustrating and only encourages other to join in the negative attitudes.

But Milk then surely everyone should be better at reporting and ignoring, rather than the ops suggestion?

If you feel are being attacked by poster a and poster b then they are the problem. Not me just because I also have a disabled child.

im not going to have a problem with you just because you might agree with points made by someone I consider to be a bit of a dick.

It's the 'dispute the posts not the poster' thing isn't it.

I'm quite shocked that members of the disabled community are t allowed to decide whether or not something is disablist. Why is it appropriate for people who aren't from that community to decide?

Does a majority ethnic group get to decide what is acceptable to say to the minority ethnic group in the same way?

A lot of people from the disabled community also disagree on what is/isn't disablist though.

I'm with the OP too.

MN is the most moderated and politically-correct forum I've ever encountered (and I don't mean that in an insulting way), yet some posters seem determined to find disablism where it's perfectly obvious that none was intended.

Unintentional disablism is still disablism. Just like unintentional racism is still racism.

If you said something offensive unintentionally, wouldn't you want someone to mention it, so you didn't say it again?

I've argued and argued about what constitutes sexism. With women.

If I'm accused of any ism I'll defend myself. Sometimes another woman accuses me of sexism and I feel it's unfair.

I don't think any one person or group get to make the rules, particularly where there is intersection.

I'm quite shocked that members of the disabled community are t allowed to decide whether or not something is disablist. Why is it appropriate for people who aren't from that community to decide?

But some people from that community are saying certain things aren't disabilist and get shouted down for daring to have a different view.

It how unintentional it is I think.

I don't think it's fair to call someone disablist when there is no evidence of disabilities other than a maybe.

I also don't think it's fair to call someone disablist when they are the victim of a person who has a disability. (If there is a better way to explain that please be polite about it.)

Yes Pag - I agree with dispute the posts, not the poster.

Don't slate me!!!

I think "suffered as a result of the behaviour of a person with a disability" is better.

I think most times, it's brought up as "that's not a good expression to use" or in a basically informational style. It's rare that people instantly jump to shrieks of "you're disablist!"

Just today, I was accused of "shouting discrimination" when I'd not mentioned disabilism OR discrimination. I didn't shout, was calm, and trying to make a point. But some people do react badly no matter how it's brought up.

Ginger You were obviously implying there was discrimination going on in that thread, honestly. This is why people automatically jump on the defensive. Stop taking my words out of context to fit your needs.

The actual real problem is MNHQ. If they had clear guidelines in place and had received advice and diversity training, I really don't think the current situation would arise. Instead they let threads carry on far too long and let people antagonise each other from thread to thread @nd everyone becomes and defensive all over the shop. Instead of just common sense around all of it and control over what is and isn't current correct terminology/attitudes.

It's been going on for months, why it wasn't nipped in the bud is beyond me. Of course people will become angry if they belong to a minority group are being told by the majority that what they experience and feel isn't real because they say so.

See what I mean?

Gruffalo they of course are allowed that opinion. Just as some women don't notice covert misogyny.

Who decides who gets to define disablism anyway?

In the interest of being clear, I can repost this that you posted G

Well your only suggestion Ginger has been to shout discrimination for a child asking to be moved, which suggests you feel she shouldn't be moved when it is directly impacting her education.

And this is what I posted above:

Just today, I was accused of "shouting discrimination" when I'd not mentioned disabilism OR discrimination. I didn't shout, was calm, and trying to make a point. But some people do react badly no matter how it's brought up.

***
I cannot see where I put any words in your mouth when you clearly stated that my reaction was "to shout discrimination" when I absolutely did not.

I don't feel that attacking me repeatedly is helpful. I was polite, calm, and made valid points. I'm sorry if that made you uncomfortable and if you did not like it, but I can't help that. As I said, some people do react badly.

Milk - in that case it depends. If they "suffered as a result of someone with a disability" and it transpires it's in a situation like school when with proper support the incident should never have taken place then yes it is disablist to blame the child. The responsible body is the school who should be meeting needs to prevent incidents.

There are other times when tolerance needs to come into play too - autistic chi,drawn in the theatre for example. It's disablist to say they shouldn't be there.

If it's a disabled person being physically/verbally abusive and they know they are doing it and in control of their actions then fair dos they're being an arse, but in that instance their disability doesn't come into it, they're being an arse. It's like threads I've seen here "some Asian did this..." - racist and irrelevant. If they're an arse because x then say they're an arse because x. Not there's a disabled arse.

Gruffalo if a person from any group of ethnicity, sex, religion etc recognises an ism they have a right to highlight that without being called on it or sniped at. I'd echo Ginger's sigh.

Gruffalo just as with sexism, racism, any ism. Those who see it.

Owllady - MNHQ probably do have clear guidelines. The problem is that they are guidelines and can't account for every tiny little thing that someone, somewhere might find offensive. I've seen on a lot of these threads where even posters with the same disability disagree as to whether something is disablist or not. How can anyone set guidelines round that?

Ginger You know that you can imply things regardless of whether you say them outright or not?

If you want to see slights in everything, do continue but don't do it my name as a disabled person.

Frankly, I'm tired of making every effort to be reasonable and calm and polite, and being attacked and accused of implying something at every turn. I think I've been quite open and honest as well as measured in this discussion, but that's twice now I've been hounded and verbally repeatedly attacked over this.

This is why these threads spiral into chaos and accusations. I've tried, but clearly it's pointless.