Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

dear MN HQ could you please be so kind as to explain to me publicaly why you allow thread like the super race one

207 replies

saint2shoes · 24/01/2009 11:04

to continue? IMO it has some very offensive posts on it, but you still have not pulled it.

OP posts:
saint2shoes · 24/01/2009 18:22

kittywise so where do you draw the line?
Is it ok then for people to start racist threads?
By onager on Sat 24-Jan-09 14:38:34
I think saint2shoes is right. People shouldn't be allowed to disagree with her. If they have different opinions then they must be wrong so they should shut up. I don't know what the worlds coming to!

it is not a case of people having to agree with me, it is bout people being disablist and talking about disabled people in an offensive way.

OP posts:
PlainOldPeachy · 24/01/2009 18:38

That's the thing Kitty- it has to be consistent or it sends out a bad message

If you disallow racist threads etc then you must disallow similar ones on other themes and vice versa

I don't know about the otehrs but consistency is what I am after iyswim?

TotalChaos · 24/01/2009 18:39

agree with wannabe and peachy.

kittywise · 24/01/2009 18:50

Yes peachy you must be fair.

But I think discussion/proper debate is so very very important.

Over the years here , through both watching and participating in various discussions/battles/ bloodbaths, I have learnt a lot.

I have looked at my own ideas, some of which I've changed because I hadn't considered a POV until it was voiced on here. Sometimes I come away from a scrap more convinced than ever of my own pov, but each time, whatever the outcome, it makes me think. Each time I am faced with the views and experiences of others and that is so important.

Without discussing matters, especially ones which disgust and upset us, we cannot move forward, cannot hope to show others that there is another way of seeing things.

2shoes, tbh I don't think there should be a line. I think we need to talk about things in the hope that we can shown others why their thoughts are simply unacceptable, don't you?
We need to keep talking, not to turn away from that which we find upsetting and simply 'wrong'

onager · 24/01/2009 18:54

There are no significant differences between someone who is black and someone who is white. Therefore there is nothing to discuss regarding their 'differences'.

A disability does make a significant difference so there is something to discuss.

In fact if you had banned discussion about disability a few decades back there would have been no discussion/legislation in parliment and no resources/help. How would you feel about that?

But you don't mean NO discussion do you. You mean "discussions that don't go the way I want them to"

saint2shoes · 24/01/2009 19:16

I have nothing against debate, but When people are post ing offensive posts then I think MN HQ should deal with them in the same way they do racism. of course disability needs to be talked about.(if it wasn't wtf would I talk about) But the op on the thread and some of the posts are not inviting healthy debate, they are doing the opposite.

OP posts:
saint2shoes · 24/01/2009 19:19

"But you don't mean NO discussion do you. You mean "discussions that don't go the way I want them to" "
why do you insist on making out this is all about me??? I am not disabled.
but I have a severely disabled child, for some bizarre reason I find it deeply Offensive when people imply that she is less worthy of life because she is disabled.

OP posts:
PlainOldPeachy · 24/01/2009 19:19

No

discussions that imply our children are somewhat different in value to oher children is what we mean I think

TotalChaos · 24/01/2009 19:23

there's a hell of a difference between discussing disability and its effect on parenting/families etc and advocating a super race .

onager · 24/01/2009 19:43

All people alive have equal value. I wouldn't have it any other way. But I'd abort a foetus that was going to be born disabled.

Can everyone here live with me holding that opinion? or does that make me disablist and therefore unfit to post?

PlainOldPeachy · 24/01/2009 20:01

Actually I am fine with that (sort of, for you anyway- in which I mean your choice to make whether I like it or not)

but if you expected ME to do the same in order to produce a super race then I have severe issues with you. If you suggest my childs genetics are to the detriment of humanity then I REALLY have severe issues with you!

Can you see the difference?

onager · 24/01/2009 20:06

Well it's like the Pro-life/pro-choice thing. I'm not trying to make you do something. Just establishing that 'I' can.

onager · 24/01/2009 20:08

I think I missed half a sentence out there, but you get what I mean.

Lemontart · 24/01/2009 20:42

kitty - I totally agree and support your view that we should not outright blanket ban certain topics for discussion. I also agree that it is wrong to silence people just because we do not agree with their viewpoint or it is a difficult subject. However, there is clearly a line to be drawn here - sometimes people do need to be silenced for their viewpoints and postings. It is all about judgement and where the line is drawn. While we all would wish for freedom of speech and openness, embracing all viewpoints as valid - in reality, this is not possible is it? In this case, this was an open view and opinion that many felt had crossed the line.

saint2shoes · 24/01/2009 21:33

surely whetehr you think i am right/wrong/stupid a answer from MNHQ would clear this up surely.

OP posts:
PlainOldPeachy · 24/01/2009 22:49

I see that Onager but that wasn't the true jist of the contentious thread was it?

If you started an abortion thread I would say that much as I find termination desperately sad I recognise that in a very few cases the continuance would be more devastating than the abortion and that creates enough of a loophole tp continue the practice.

however the thread wanted a super race. Not to screen children in order to prevent pain or heartbreak, but to create a super race.

Which is the diffrence btween nazi practice and therapeutic euthanasia as practised in Holland, no?

kittywise · 25/01/2009 09:05

Tbh peachy that is NOT what I understood the op to be saying at all.

Lemontart · 25/01/2009 09:10

but Kitty - the title is "a new super race?" and then her OP says - she can?t see what the fuss is and that breeding out people so that we are left with fitter healthier options only can only be a good thing.
I think Peachy was not overstating or exagerrating the OP - if you read it through, she was clearly supporting the view of a super race as stated in her title.

Lemontart · 25/01/2009 09:12

the OP gave the label "super race" herself, nobody else presumed that or jumped to conclusions. Also, the comment "super race" was hardly a thrown in the mix phrase - it was used in the thread title. How more obvious can that be?

sarah293 · 25/01/2009 09:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

PlainOldPeachy · 25/01/2009 09:33

It is exactly what op wanted, and she used terms such as fitter, smarter, super race herself

sarah293 · 25/01/2009 10:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

PlainOldPeachy · 25/01/2009 10:11

I've got a few primary sources from my slavery dissertation.

Excuses for being anti abolition mainly warble about intellectual inferiority, racial downgrading for 'caucasians', god given abilities

Yep same old shite

2shoes · 25/01/2009 15:01

strange, still no answer and race thread still there!!

kittywise · 25/01/2009 16:06

ok, serves me right for mis-reading the op.

I had assumed that she had also taken the title 'super race' from the Guardian article.