"boomer" thread 2 💥

[IClaudine]

A thread for people who want to combat ageism on the site, because MNHQ can't be bothered to.

FFS here we go again, didn't we have enough last night.

Oh god, the loony night troll is back.

Watching (thread, not troll)

Thanks to all for your comments.

A large part of the problem boils down to a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes ageism. From our perspective, there’s always room for nuance but we cannot delete posts just because they mention someone’s age or may offend anyone. Calls to ban all mention of ‘boomers’, for example, just isn’t workable because it's a generally understood descriptor. If you think a post is unfair, you can always explain your position directly on the boards - as mentioned in our guidelines, our policy is to keep intervention to a minimum and let the conversation flow.

We're always happy to look at posts that cross the line however so do report them

I hear you @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet but, in all honesty, that's not good enough from a site which specifies that ageism is against its own Talk Guidelines.

How about you (collective you) have a serious go at defining what you mean by what is and isn't acceptable ageism on Mumsnet?

You managed quite well to police speech about "gender reassignment" on the FWR boards. Some might even say you went further than the law requires. Interesting that the same clarity over ageism isn't possible. Age is a protected characteristic, just like gender reassignment; there is no hierarchy of protected characteristics.

If you think a post is unfair, you can always explain your position directly on the boards - as mentioned in our guidelines, our policy is to keep intervention to a minimum and let the conversation flow

"Unfair." Nice minimising of the ageism on this site.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

But "boomer" (NOTE: not "baby boomer") HAS been defined by many many organisations, social media forums, and groups (as well as Ofcom who do not accept it being used in broadcasting) as an offensive term.

N, spa, and a whole host of other offensive slurs that are (quite rightly) deleted from MN are also "generally understood descriptors". OFFENSIVE generally understood descriptors.

Is HQ actually misunderstanding the nuance that they are telling us about here?

Does it need spelling out (again)

Baby boomer = not offensive, the descriptor used for people born between certain years.

Boomer= offensive and derogatory term used to insult baby boomers.

"there's always room for nuance"
Really? There's been absolutely no nuance in the ageism and derogatory use of "boomer" that we've seen all too often on MN.
No-one has ever suggested deleting messages that just mentions someone's age. That's just not true, and completely not what we're arguing, @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet . It's rather like the poster upthread who claimed we thought gransnet was ageist, just to stir trouble. It's absolute nonsense, and we all know that the derogatory and offensive posts based on age are all too frequent.

Is there nuance to be found in racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia?

Could you please explain where the "nuance" is in:

"They probably think they 'deserve' to enjoy their life (baby boomers are known for their particular brand of selfishness), and fuck everyone else. It's just terrible"

I reported that, as did many others and we were told it was "being looked into" but it wasn't deleted. Only days later after the first of these threads and many, many more reports was it finally deleted.

There is absolutely no context in that post - its a simple slur.

Try replacing "baby boomers" with "women", race-of-your-choice, sexual-orientation-of-your-choice, religion, disability category and tell us which would be acceptable under "nuance" and require many reports followed by discussion on site stuff and further delays before its finally deleted as breaching talk guidelines?

Unless all the others would be acceptable under nuance that leaves us to assume the mods or a sizeable number agree with the comment and find it reasonable.

Either go full on free speech or sort the guidelines out because picking and choosing which "isms" are acceptable based on day of the week, phase of the moon or Mystic Meg's magic 8 ball really helps nobody.

Exactly, - would those comments be acceptable applied to any other group?

Agreeing with these replies to @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet.

I realised I haven't seen the examples mentioned because I actively avoid threads about 'boomers' these days, and stop reading others when an ageist post is added. I'm challenged enough by anti-TERF and class-related arguments, there's no way I want to sit at home defending my right to live past the age of 59.

You may think it's okay, she can choose to avoid them - and you'd be right, but it's not okay. This is what government calls a chilling effect: the silencing of a demographic through implied threats and bullying.

As MNHQ clearly aren't seeing the problem, please revisit this quote and reconsider:

"They probably think they 'deserve' to enjoy their life (Jews are known for their particular brand of selfishness), and fuck everyone else. It's just terrible"

Intolerable? Well, yes. Do you see now?

It can also include the way that older people are represented in the media, which can have a wider impact on the public’s attitudes.

This is from the site you linked to @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet
^
How is that not clear?

Why, more to the point, are you so reluctant to accept what so many of us are telling you? And reporting?

We keep being told that challenging ageism on the threads will have more impact. But surely being deleted for posting ageist posts would have more impact on those who are spouting such stuff?^

If you think that Blackmumsnetters are happy with the MNs generally accepted 'nuances' you are misguided.

Your assumptions about me and what I think are misguided.

This post reminds me of the time when mn hq used to say this about ablistest posts

I think MN have a policy they'd ideally like everyone to abide by but are unwilling to actually uphold their own policies because it would take too much work. There is a lot of ageism here. But I would also say the site is full of racism and micro aggressions and they don't get appropriately dealt with either. I have come to realise the policy itself is flawed and this forum is the same as any other online space where you'll find lots of pretty disgusting prejudices.

I have come to realise the policy itself is flawed and this forum is the same as any other online space where you'll find lots of pretty disgusting prejudices

I've come to this conclusion as well, and that the site has now become too big to police effectively. Also the fact that ageism is pretty much ingrained - thre was a comment on one board about what women over 50 were wearing. The 'over 50' bit was unnecessary in terms of the discussion, and yet the poster just slipped it in casually and probably didn't even notice they had.

So, on another thread, "boomer" continues to be used as a term of abuse. I'm struggling to find the nuance.

🙄