Why was the big abortion thread removed yesterday?

[ChesterBelloc]

That's all.

MNHQ said there had been various reports of the thread - for what? - and then deleted it with no further explanation.

Please enlighten me.

Hello there ChesterBelloc,

Thanks for your question- we’re happy to try and explain our reasoning here. The thread in question, was, for the most part, a civil discussion about a contentious subject- something we’d have no issue with so long as it was within our Talk Guidelines. Unfortunately, though, it quickly became derailed by an extremely offensive poster, who is now banned from the site.

As well as that, we received a lot of reports from MNers who found the thread quite distressing, and felt that many of the posts were deliberately inflammatory. We certainly don’t want a situation where MNers who may have been through such a traumatic experience feel the need to join a thread to justify their decisions- which we could see was happening.

Removing very busy threads is not a decision we take lightly, but we do like to be guided by our users here, and judging by the large number of reports, we felt leaving the thread to stand would only continue to cause distress, and that’s not what we’re about.

"We certainly don’t want a situation where MNers who may have been through such a traumatic experience feel the need to join a thread to justify their decisions- which we could see was happening."

Hmm. So in order to avoid posters deliberately joining a thread which might upset or offend them, you remove the thread so that there's no opportunity for them to do so...?

Sounds like closing down contentious discussions in case someone gets offended. Which sounds like the opposite of free speech.

If a poster doesn't feel able to discuss something, they shouldn't enter the discussion. They should not enter the discussion, declare themselves distressed and offended, and demand the entire discussion disappear in a puff of smoke. And MNHQ should definitely not be enabling such behaviour. Ban a troll, by all means, but don't consign the rest of us to the same bin.

Shame on you.

I didn't see the thread, but LornaMumsnet's post seems reasonable enough.

It was a horrible and unnecessary thread.

I'm glad it went.

I was on that thread, was wondering the same. I was at work the day it was pulled and clearly missed some major detailing.

I do think it is a shame that MNHQ is so quick to delete threads these days, though.

I don't understand why the very offensive poster couldn't just be deleted and banned, and the thread allowed to continue.

Yes, abortion is a sensitive topic. Yes, some posters will find it painful; they may or may not choose to engage.

Are we saying that we can't debate the ethics of abortion, then? At all? Because if we debate it, then everything that was on that thread apart from THAT poster's comments was entirely within the bounds of reasonable discussion of a fairly heavy subject.

What else can we not debate, in case it is painful for some posters who, despite the now ubiquitous "trigger warning", choose to engage? Euthanasia? The Holocaust? Transgenderism?

That's not the MN I remember.

Exactly, Greensleeves.

Why 'unnecessary', Empire? Because no one could possibly dare to have an opinion different from yours/the mainstream? Or because, even if they so dare, people holding such views have no right to express them on a public forum?

Yes, that was the poster who should quite rightly have been deleted and banned. The rest of the thread could have stood.

Why 'unnecessary', Empire? Because no one could possibly dare to have an opinion different from yours/the mainstream? Or because, even if they so dare, people holding such views have no right to express them on a public forum?

Actually, I'm the one with an opinion that differs from the mainstream.

Could you explain why you think the thread was 'unnecessary'?

That is an offensive noun, I agree; but I also know people (from other countries/cultures/generations) who would use similar terminology without intending any offence

They shouldn't.

People of some cultures and backgrounds think they should be allowed to call me a Paki or a wog. Should that kind of language go unchallenged in the name of free speech?

I'm not saying that it should go unchallenged; I'm saying I don't think entire 500-post threads, that were 98% perfectly reasonable, should be deleted because people are offended by someone's language (and that term appeared in a private message, not even on the main thread itself).

I understand what you’re saying @lornamumsnet and understand moderation must be a difficult balance but I also think MNHQ should be guided by their many users who are frustrated at threads being deleted. I suspect many more don’t complain about a particular thread than do.

The language is part of the problem. If hq left the thread they would be not be giving their SN parents the support they deserve. Language is pervasive and insidious in discrimination. Hq need to pick where they stand on certain threads: as a supportive resource and community or a robust, debate site. I think they made the right call on this thread.

I agree the debate is important and should be had. But that thread is tainted by the language used and the singling out of posters. Describing children with Downs syndrome as Mongols and freaks who should be aborted cannot be allowed to stand. Even in PMs. Imo if HQ left the thread up they would be complicit in hurting the posters on the receiving end of that.

Just start another thread. One that doesn't hurt the SN community here.

@ChesterBelloc our decision to remove the thread wasn't preempted on folks being offended or upset, as we could see this was already happening. In this case, we were faced with a thread that had especially horrible disablism, numerous personal attacks and was straying far from the realms of what could be considered civilised debate. We absolutely support and encourage free speech, but in order to keep Talk a good place to hang out, we will remove threads that become this offensive- which is why we ask posters to adhere to our Talk Guidelines.

We should also mention that we may also remove posts that quote or paraphrase deleted posts.

(and that term appeared in a private message, not even on the main thread itself)

It appeared around 10 times on the thread BEFORE the private message actually.

By a poster who had previous posting history.