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.

I agree lougle. I find a lot that Trump has said and stands for very distasteful but find the insults posted here from the poem as direct personal insult and the ambiguity makes me very uncomfortable.

I have great sympathy for Justine and MNHQ as it must be very difficult to draw that line without stifling the range of opinions and robust debate many of us have enjoyed and been educated by on the one hand or allowing an unpleasant free for all on the other. MN do need to have a certain amount of consistency in the deleting attacks on people in public eye though as the site could become an echo chamber if attacks are only allowed on those not approved of

One more limerick but I didn't write it.
It is about President Erdogan:

There was a young fellow from Ankara
Who was a terrific Wankerer
Till he sowed his wild oats
with the help of a goat.
But he didn't even stop to Thankera.

That was written by our current foreign secretary and printed in the Spectator.
He received £1000 for it.

I just had another look at the thread and here are a couple of quotes.
"Paris Lees is a balls out misogynist"
"Paris Lees is overtly misogynist"

There are quite a few posts calling PL misogynist that were left to stand, so it is completely untrue that deletions happened because of that. Deletions did happen where PL was misgendered. This has been clear MN policy for a while.

I agree with Lougle ,it will start to feel like an echo chamber here soon. She can question it if she wants to, I am just as bored with the responses telling her to leave if she doesn't like it.

I am an oldie too, coming up for 14 years on here and lougle doesn't go around trying to draw attention to herself. Anyone who starts a thread or even comments on a thread is drawing attention.

Dione - iirc there was one (not sure if more) which used the phrase 'vile misogynist' which was nuked, leading to questioning about why as the 'guest' thing wasn't clear at that point. I assume it was the 'vile' which pushed it over the limit of acceptability in that case.

But yes, most of the deletions were for 'misgendering' including the mistake where the 'he' was referring to preceding post about trump.

I also agree with Lougle. I read the poem, didn't think it particularly funny or clever (sorry, Squirmy) but saw it as an outburst at the American vote result. That's not satire.

I also agree with Ilovehedgehogs but would say that the echo-chamber effect is already here. We're allowed to question things, that's what makes this site brilliant but the mocking of Lougle for her views isn't cricket and isn't what makes this site what it is.

Disagreeing with someone isn't 'mocking them'

WellErr, we'll just agree to disagree then I was going to copy and paste your 'Ner ner' post but many of them to Lougle have been a bit pointed. Disagreeing with somebody is fine; but mocking is what it feels like on this thread. To me anyway.

I understand Lougle's point and I understand the wanting to deride a public figure but as there is inconsistency there, it's fair enough to point that out. It should be the same principle across the board, for everybody.

If the rule is that we can't be rude to MN guests (or not within a short time frame of them coming onto the MN platform in some way) then that would be good to know. It felt a little bit like a made up rule following the deletion of a "vile misogynist" post, and seemed all the more odd because at the same time there was a thread running about Ed Balls - who was also at Blogfest - and not everything on that was complimentary but was allowed to stand.

TBH I often think of MNHQ like parents or nursery teachers who find themselves drawn into some ridiculous squabbles, and although the rules are usually easy to apply consistently and fairly every now and again they do something that is different and feels unfair...but they have committed to it now, and can't really row back.

Trump is a political figure. It is necessary and right that citizens be able to mock world leaders.

Version 1:
Hitler has only got one ball
The other is in the Albert Hall
His mother,
The dirty bugger
Cut it off when he was small
Hitler has only got one ball
Hess has got no balls at all
Himmler had something similar
But poor old Goebbals
Had no balls at all

Lougle - just wanted to say that in case it wasn't clear from my previous posts I have no issue with your criticisms, I don't take it personally and I hope that my previous responses don't come across as snarky. I knew that the poem came very close to the line when I posted it. I thought that (for the reasons I listed earlier in this thread) it fell just within the guidelines. You feel it falls outside them, and I completely understand why, believing that, you made a complaint.

I also appreciate that plenty of people think its a bit rubbish and unfunny.
That's fine too, but it's not a reason to delete it. There are some incredibly articulate, well researched and interesting threads on the politics and referendum boards at the moment. I wasn't trying to compete with those.
There's some really funny threads elsewhere on the site as well. And some rubbish.

I do think it's quite interesting what counts as offensive and what doesn't, it's varies wildly from person to person.
Personally I think that the most offensive comment in that poem was the facsism reference (the rest was either adolescent swearing or demonstrably true accusations) and I nearly didn't include it.
It's a word which is really easy to overuse, and I think that it has been used inappropriately as an insult so much that we've almost become unable to spot a real one when they do come along, like crying nazi-wolf.
But then I looked again at the parallels (and no, I am not saying the current far right movements are carbon copies of what has gone before, but there is enough ground for comparison), and I decided to include it.

Thanks squishy and as I say, your poem is clever. I'm not saying it's not.

I know lougle.

Eh. MumsnetHQ have made it clear that their moderating policy isn't consistent. It's not transparent, either: it seems to be "we make it up as we go along and if you don't like it you can leave".

I thought of this thread this morning listening to the Today programme on R4.

Kenneth Baker and Jan Ravens were discussing satire. Ken made the excellent point that satire was banned in pre-revolutionary France and the French had their royal family beheaded.

We've always sent up our superiors (Swift, Hogarth). It's part of liberal democracy.

I agree OP.

I don't really have much more to add. A bit more consistency would be good.

You honestly do not see how ridiculing a general MN user, or a particular modify community DOES NOT equal ridiculing our neo-Adolf?

You seriously interpret equality as the same rules for all, not ensuring that rules accommodate and respond to individual instances?

Jesus Christ.

Minority not modify FFS

Just as an FYI...
Please find attached Rivertam's post from the PL thread. No misgendering.

No misgendering.

Um.... Pairs is neither a Blogger, a woman, a mother....

From what i understand (fromt his thread) she's a woman.

Calling Paris 'he' would be misgendering

Last I checked, biological statements of fact were allowed on mn.

I don't know another about the subject to get involved, but "not a woman" stands out in the above screenshot.

Fair enough, but you'll see Justine then says it is being deleted for personal attacks, not for misgendering.

I wasn't even on the thread.