why would anyone see anything wrong with with racism and disablism deleted?
I believe in freedom of debate.
I have zero problem with specific posts being deleted if truly within the rules (as opposed to so ambiguous you have to turn upside down to see it) of what MN says is wrong and also if many people find it upsetting. I reported posts on the Meghan threads myself occasionally, not because I personally found them offensive, (I'd rather explain why I find something upsetting or why something may be construed as upsetting, which is actually far more effective) but I just knew they would be jumped on by the usuals in order to justify getting the thread shut down.
But that's as far I go. Thread pulling I completely disagree with, except where the mental health of the OP is in question/issues of being recognised/ obvious bullying to the OP etc. Aside from that I don't care how offensive it is.
In the early days of MN they had this philosophy to a greater extent and the 'hide thread' facility was supposed to make it easier for people to avoid threads they found upsetting. In fact many times people would say "I'm hiding this thread now" Now they say "Why is MN allowing this thread? Why is MN agreeing with racism etc? Then MN brought out the 'Not in the spirit' clause, which to whom we have to ask, does this apply? The women happily debating and joining in the thread or those not enjoying it? That was the start of the arbitrary thread closing. Sometimes you would see 4 or more popular threads a you were watching disappear in a week. By this MN said a mother is certain thing. Albeit one not capable of withstanding challenging debate.
MN is a forum for discussion. It is not their job to curtail free speech. They are not racist/disablist/sexist/transphobic for allowing the free speech of other people.
It is ultimately about free speech here and on the web in general. There is too much censorship of opinion.
I stand by this. I was on a thread 2 days ago about the statue of Edward Colstson being pulled down, which, whilst I felt it regrettable it was pulled down in that moment due to deflection from the direct issues at stake, none-the-less I was trying to explain why some BAME people felt so strongly against it and why some feel the sorrow of slavery deeply even now.
Many people did not agree and expressed some opinions and attitudes I found quite challenging and honestly upsetting. Some were being goady.
I didn't call those posters racist, or bigots. I didn't canvass for the thread to be pulled or report anyone's posts. I didn't accuse MN mods of 'allowing racism' for not intervening to control some unpleasant thoughts
I didn't return to the thread. Note I did not return, not expect the thread to be gone.
The problem now is that when people have their feelings hurt, they expect to have whatever offended them removed. Debate is stifled because people cannot express their real opinion. So those people don't post anymore. This definitely happened on the M threads. When they are unsuccessful at getting whatever offends them removed immediately, they resort to trying to causing arguments in order to get the thread pulled. They call poster's names, and aim vitriol at them without asking what their intentions were or giving them a chance to explain.
Those names are quite serious: 'racist' is a strong term equal to calling someone anti-semitic. It should, in my opinion, be used in extreme cases so it can retain it's power. Are some prejudiced or ignorant? Yes. They can be taught. There isn't a person on the planet who doesn't have some predjudices. We all prefer and identify with our ingroup. Yet I note that rather inconsistently MN allows people to call others these names without deletion. Not saying they should be deleted but be consistent.
MN increasingly happily comply when people cite whatever ism/phobic/ist they want. This tactic is replicated across MN as it has proven effective. So they now have a big problem on their hands as this is what people expect when something upsets them. People expect MN to be nice and uncontroversial and frankly non-reflective of the real world or debate on sites elsewhere.
I noted people applauding MN mods for actually cutailing threads and what content people are allowed to discuss. That I find shocking to be honest and illustrative of how far expectations of nice conversation have gone.
At least with the Mccanns there was real threat of litigation. But I recall many grumbles about the censorship regardless.
There is also the inconsistency. There was a thread a few months ago about Michael Buble where he was more or less called a domestic abuser. That stood. I have seen threads alleging things about VB marriage based on BG. They have stood.
So it really is about who shouts loudly the most. That imo, should not be the metric by which entire threads that hundreds of women have contributed to are shut down.