How does this gel with your thread on your moderation policy MNHQ??

[lougle]

Apologies in advance for a thread about two threads - I don't want to derail either thread but I'm genuinely curious as to how you've reconciled your stance on moderation with your response to squishysquirmy's poem about Donald Trump?

On your Moderation policy thread Justine says:

"This doesn't mean that it's a complete free for all. Of course we do and will continue to remove posts that break our rules – for instance personal attacks and those that break the law or promote hate."

Then on Squishysquirmy's Help-What-rhymes-with-cuntweasel? thread you've promoted the thread to classics because it contains a 77 line, very clever, very amusing, poem about Donald Trump, which is

-clearly a personal attack
-encouraging others to ridicule him

I'm absolutely no fan, I have to say, but what was the thinking here?? How does this get promoted to classics when other less offensive posts have been deleted recently?

I do think there needs to be some level of consistency if you want people to accept that you are making rational decisions about what you delete.

Fat. Pig. Dog. Slob. Disgusting animal.

These are just a few of the names that Donald Trump has called women over the years.

Trump should be fucking ashamed of himself.

He said of Hilary:
"If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?"

He set himself up for derision and foddder for satire. Sometimes it's the only way to cope with the horror of the reality.

He mocked a disabled man.

He hasn't done any of that on here though Caesium and if he had/did his posts would be deleted and he would likely be banned not rewarded with a thread in Classics.

The OP is asking for the rules to be applied with consistency that's all.

He is a public figure worthy of public scorn.

He made those statements publicly. He is being publicly derided for them.

So are other public figures and things they have said/done and if MNHQ would/do delete similar threads and comments about them then Donald Trump should be treated in the same manner by MNHQ. If any public figure is fair game and similar threads and comments are allowed to stand then all well and good but the policy should be clear and consistent.

I agree that a consistent policy would be good. What I dont agree with is tha MNHQ should be told to be "ashamed" of themselves for letting a man who believes that women's bodies are public property (grab 'em by the pussy) should be immune from public derision and satirical mockery.

That doesn't make the nasty threads about his wife better, regardless.

Isn't it obvious that there's a huge difference between a personal attack on someone simply for having different views, and a humorously venomous poem written about an almost-invincible public figure, someone who has incited hatred and violence towards women and minorities, and is unlikely to ever read said poem, let alone be emotionally affected by it?

I'm sure there are other examples where "personal attacks" of this nature would be allowed here. Remember the MN hack, all the hate spewed at 'Jeffrey'? What about abusive husbands on the relationships board? LTB? I know we can't act as judge, jury and executioner but if someone bullies you and brags about abusing women etc, well I don't think the rule against personal attacks is intended for situations such as these.

MNHQ rules are surely not binding laws that must be upheld to the very word in all circumstances, abandoning all common sense to enforce them?! I think MNHQ can use their discretion - it's pretty damn obvious that poem is harming no-one. Unless you're a sensitive soul in which case don't read sweary poems.

Someone written a satiric poem expressing their anger at the election of a prominent figure.
That isn't the same as a personal attack or using racist/disabilist language.
How can we debate any political views if a criticism is framed as a PA?
It's ridiculous. I doubt DT will see the poem or care.

Exactly Mamushka

I agree entirely

Oh x post with mamushka and hers is more articulate

Sorry, I posted the OP then got a phonecall to day that my DH had broken down on the way to pick up DD1 so had to dash out.

I don't post on transgender threads, generally, and don't have a particularly opinion on gender critical issues. I have no axe to grind in either direction there.

I am, however, aware of the recent deletion issues and I think this is an example of disparity. If MNHQ hold the stance that we shouldn't be making personal attacks about public figures, which it seems they do by deleting posts or threads about the Beckhams, Lily Allen, Paris Lee, David Cameron and Gok Wan, then I don't think they should be cherry picking which public figures they will protect and which they will let slide. I certainly don't think they should be making a poem with such overt attack a 'classic'.

And if making public statements was a defence for being able to publicly deride him, that takes us full circle to Paris Lee, so I don't think MNHQ will be keen to use CaesiumTime's argument!

To sum up my thoughts - the rules are surely there to protect people who need protecting. Donald Trump does not need protecting against a few lines of poetry on a parenting forum.

Ah, yes, but lougleMNHQ haven't invited Trump to speak on their panel, have they? That was their point on that thread re Paris Lee.

However misguided the invitation was, they weren't comfortable with PL being labelled a "vile mysoginst" prior to appearing on their panel. I don't necessarily defend their stance but it isn't totally irrational/random.

The only time I've noticed threads on David Cameron being deleted is when cheap and nasty shots were posted about his deceased son.

And I'm pretty sure for the Beckham's it's only icw their DC too.

(and I'm sick of transphobia being dragged into absolutely everything)

Laughing at how badly IPityThePontypines has missed the point!

OP is questioning why Mumsnet have put the poem thread into Classics! I think her answer to your question

You are aware that threads critical of Victoria Beckham, Lily Allen, Madeleine McCann's parents and David Cameron's parenting have also been previously deleted, aren't you?

I also remember posters getting a bollocking from MNHQ for filling a Gok Wan webchat with snide questions and MNHQ saying that such posting wouldn't be tolerated

would be yes indeed, and so why is this thread about Trump being treated any differently?

As Mamushka said - Trump doesn't need protecting.

Doesn't really matter if he "needs" protecting. It's about applying the same rules across the board.

And it certainly isn't on to be attacking his family.

OP, MNHQ have been pretty consistent about their policy of misgendering. I read the PL thread as posts appeared and then again after moderation. Most of the deleted posts were due to deliberate misgendering and therefore fell foul of a well known, much discussed MN rule.