How about a campaign where the users get MNHQ staff to take diversity training?

[Ghostofasmile]

MNHQ themselves have displayed ignorance (at best) over the last few months and prejudice / discrimination at worst when dealing with certain situations.
For example Justine, the sites owner herself over the last few days has made some very ignorant and damaging comments about diabetes.
We have seen the same with many times with Racism too as well as low level disablism.

Unless you are white, middle class and able bodied HQ isn't a nice place to be.

Post here if you would like this to take place. HQ need training and they need it fast.

I think AmyG post raises a good question, while they believe the question was raised in good faith, on an individual level it could be very upsetting so has been deleted.That could be the case with quite a few things that are left standing because its believed they arnt disablist. I think sometimes things should be deleted on that basis

Yes, it's all on an individual level when we are talking about people's feelings. Perhaps mumsnet needs to start thinking on an individual level a bit more. They clearly meant well but it was misguided and unprofessional to bring a specific disabled employee into any general discussion about disability in the first place. Perhaps they are viewing general 'debate' about disability without realising that it could apply to people in a very specific way, whereupon the potential for hurt and offence should be viewed completely differently.

To be fair to Dixie there was a post from a teacher on that thread that appeared to upset people more than the OP.

I have a 3 year with ASD who acts out psychically and there is no way of knowing whether or not this is something which will get worse as he gets older or not.

I don't care who you are, no one like the thought of someone speaking badly about their children and that could be one of our kids one day.

MNHQ have a pretty poor record on being sensitive to disability. I don't think that diversity training would help, though. It's a bit like the old joke about lightbulbs: they don't change unless they want to.

Why are you determined to keep bringing specific MN employees into the discussion, slender? It has been made perfectly clear MNHQ do not wish you to do that.

I'm not doing that at all saucery. I'm referring to a decision made by MNHQ, not any employee. I chose to do so because a point was made about that decision that has relevance for the discussion. It's clear you aren't interested in any discussion so I suggest you ignore it, since you don't like it and feel that's how people should respond to comments they don't like.

Ugh, my post makes bugger all sense. Tired.

I just wanted to say, Dixie, I totally got where you were coming from there.

But on the other hand, I'm sure it is incredibly stressful working in a job where psychical assault happens often.

I would hate to think people wouldn't be able to post about their own stresses on here in case they are accused to disablism.

I think that's why it's important to look at the intent of someone's posts.

It's tricky.

I have to agree that the post from that teacher was unpleasant. I disagree that the whole topic was disablist though. My DP is a teacher at a special needs school and he wouldn't dream of saying such a thing.

I get that when you have a stressful job you need a break from it in real life. However, I can't see how having a child with SN next door is a problem unless they ask you to babysit or write reports for them!

Again you do realise that people with disabilities are individuals, they don't all think.the same

Which is why offensiveness should not be deleted. Because something is offensive to one does not mean it is offensive to all (deliberate personal attacks excluded)

Itsall do you agree with that rule for sexism, ageism, racism, homophobia and xenophobia too?

What about pro paedo posting?

Everything offensive to remain?

Everything offensive to remain?

Yes, I do. People have a right to express their opinions. Others have a right to be offended by those opinions. Both have a right to civilly debate those opinions. As an aside there have been some very interesting threads about paedophilia on this site

Dixie The problem with not in the spirit of the site is that is still censoring opinion based on MNHQs views of what should be deleted, however, that is MNHQs decision to take.

In the context of this site MNHQ should decide what is appropriate for this site, and not their posters.

For your analogy to work or have a possible theoretical context, there would have to be a considerable number of people holding a view that would be offensive to a group of people on the site who are traditionally seen as marginalised. So what about if mumsnet's white supremacist's contingent grew quite quickly and wanted to defend the validity of their remarks, which they made on the site to other members? Or radical islamists? Or what about a paedophile group developing on mumsnet and wanting to defend its right to be here (after all, you don't have to be a parent) and its right to talk about life as they saw it?

Would there ever come a point when you would say, 'Actually, we need to stand for something and something we stand for is the protection of vulnerable and minority groups, especially when they parents, to the point that we cannot allow them to be abused and excluded on this site'.

Or do you think anyone can really say anything they like without being guilty of causing offence, provided they do so civilly, and others just have to lump it?

especially when they are parents

As an aside there have been some very interesting threads about paedophilia on this site

Oh please, as if there has been, to quote BBA any pro paedo posting, that's been allowed to stand on here.

Besides which, as a privately-owned website, the concept of a "right to debate" doesn't apply.

And why should society operate on a policy of pleasing the group and investing all worth in the community but none in the feelings and perceptions of the individual? I can see no logical or moral rationale for that kind of thinking.

I think people are too quick to shout Goady Fucker. New posters are accused of posting to cause trouble when, it seems to me, that often just isn't the case. They maybe haven't chosen their words very well but if they are new to MN they don't know how quick to take offence some people are.

They get jumped on from a great height and the thread derailed before it even starts, sometimes. Accusations of disablism are thrown where no offence was intended. Posters are accused of trying to start a bun fight when what they want is a bit of advice or support. Nit picking at the language used by posters who (it's apparent to me) may have LDs themselves is in itself disablist, frankly.

Not every member has the advantage of a good education and the gift of eloquence.

Could someone do me a massive favour?

report my post at Sun 06-Nov-16 12:11:57, I reported it myself yesterday but it's doesn't seem to have been read.

It's nothing earth shattering, it's just two of my posts refrencing The Mumsnet staff members have been missed when MNBHQ swept through the board, so they are left up.

In fact there have been many instances of disabled people being shouted down because they fail to agree with a few posters who seem to have appointed themselves spokespeople for every disabled person on Mumsnet.

Yes - or rather, they've decided THEIR views on what is disablist are the right views, and if other disabled people disagree they are disablist. These are the same people who think MNHQ are wrong about reported posts, rather than disagree about them being disablist.

I'm glad MNHQ aren't giving in to the shouting.