Thread about Harry and Meghan that has no deletions

[OverUnderSidewaysDown]

Play nicely and don’t say anything that will get your post (or the thread) deleted. I’ll start. Archie is cute and it would be lovely to see him more often.

These threads aren't representative of MN ... although there are some similarities to the feminist threads that get invaded by MRAs or TRAs determined to push their agenda, derail, make unfounded accusations about MNers and consciously disrupt every conversation. It's tedious. The difference is there are clear guidelines in the feminist section and derailing and smears against MNers aren't allowed to stand.

BotItomOfMyPencilCase
I realise that. I was responding to the post about criticism of females on MN, that's all. You talk of 'fandom' on Twitter, (which is not MN). I agree, there are mad extremes at either end of the spectrum.

its odd that posters always try to defend their posts about M by saying well.. look at the threads about Trump/Boris.
when will people get that Trump/Boris are politicians they literally have our lives in their hands.
unlike H&M who do not.

That is true Samcro but doesn't apply in this specific example does it when moderation is deleting comments and advising suspensions could apply on discussion of one individuals appearance (not PH/MM) yet this moderation policy doesn't apply across the boards. FWR boards have additional moderation rules but they are explicit and posters know the rules. Being report led moderation will mean MN is bumpy and uneven (as a site, not implying the mods themselves are bumpy or indeed uneven) but reflection and clarity are important elements of this approach to moderation.

@boltzmannbrains I see it from both sides not just one. I realise you don't share that perspective but I'd prefer if you didn't deliberately misunderstand my posts. That's part of the tediousness I was referring to.

@Roussette I was talking about Twitter. Perhaps where we disagree is I see elements of that fandom on some of these threads as I see some of the fervent H&M bashers. But the moderation doesn't treat both sides equally.

FWR had to fight for clear modding guidelines maybe we need a thread in Site Stuff to argue the same for these threads. It should be simple:

No whataboutery
No derailing
No personal attacks on other posters (disagreeing with someone isn't a personal attack)
No reiteration of old threads or references to them
No smearing of all MNers/the MSM/the entire UK as racist (the UK does have a problem with racism and institutional racism but it's a serious topic that should be discussed separately not a smear used to suit down debate about other subjects imo)
No unfounded rumours against ANY members of the RF - that would mean stories in MSM can be discussed but not blinds or Sussex squad leaks
No attacks on RF staff members
No criticism of appearances

Any other suggestions?

[quote BottomOfMyPencilCase]@boltzmannbrains I see it from both sides not just one. I realise you don't share that perspective but I'd prefer if you didn't deliberately misunderstand my posts. That's part of the tediousness I was referring to.

@Roussette I was talking about Twitter. Perhaps where we disagree is I see elements of that fandom on some of these threads as I see some of the fervent H&M bashers. But the moderation doesn't treat both sides equally.

FWR had to fight for clear modding guidelines maybe we need a thread in Site Stuff to argue the same for these threads. It should be simple:

No whataboutery
No derailing
No personal attacks on other posters (disagreeing with someone isn't a personal attack)
No reiteration of old threads or references to them
No smearing of all MNers/the MSM/the entire UK as racist (the UK does have a problem with racism and institutional racism but it's a serious topic that should be discussed separately not a smear used to suit down debate about other subjects imo)
No unfounded rumours against ANY members of the RF - that would mean stories in MSM can be discussed but not blinds or Sussex squad leaks
No attacks on RF staff members
No criticism of appearances

Any other suggestions?[/quote]
I think those guidelines would be very helpful. I think it should be perfectly possible to exchange differing views without heat or accusations.

I think racism or any other kind of othering should be called out wherever it occurs but, in my view, it is not helpful to instantly label any criticism as hate, or racism. From what I have seen here and elsewhere all that achieves is to create anger and resentment. Generally those don't lead to balanced debate.

Mn Hq have posted at length on many of these threads.
a lot of people no longer post on these threads(I have tried not to) as they are then ripped apart else where.
sadly not much mn hq can do about that. but seeing those same posters being all wide eyed and complaining about being deleted on here is a joke (not directed any posters on here)

[quote BottomOfMyPencilCase]@boltzmannbrains I see it from both sides not just one. I realise you don't share that perspective but I'd prefer if you didn't deliberately misunderstand my posts. That's part of the tediousness I was referring to.

@Roussette I was talking about Twitter. Perhaps where we disagree is I see elements of that fandom on some of these threads as I see some of the fervent H&M bashers. But the moderation doesn't treat both sides equally.

FWR had to fight for clear modding guidelines maybe we need a thread in Site Stuff to argue the same for these threads. It should be simple:

No whataboutery
No derailing
No personal attacks on other posters (disagreeing with someone isn't a personal attack)
No reiteration of old threads or references to them
No smearing of all MNers/the MSM/the entire UK as racist (the UK does have a problem with racism and institutional racism but it's a serious topic that should be discussed separately not a smear used to suit down debate about other subjects imo)
No unfounded rumours against ANY members of the RF - that would mean stories in MSM can be discussed but not blinds or Sussex squad leaks
No attacks on RF staff members
No criticism of appearances

Any other suggestions?[/quote]
Hear hear!!

a lot of people no longer post on these threads(I have tried not to) as they are then ripped apart else where.

Where is 'else where'?

I think it's just getting boring now with all this can't say this can't say that. If you're not keen on M & H what an awful person you must be yaddy yaddy ya.

I think racism or any other kind of othering should be called out wherever it occurs
I agree. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I think MN is very good at deleting posts that are racist.
It saddens me that posters think MNers aren't capable of having a discussion or chat without animosity, rehashing years old threads and becoming entrenched into sides. We've always been able to do it in the past. We're not Twitter and actually what I dislike most about this tiny section of MN is that it feels a lot like Twitter sometimes.

@Samcro

its odd that posters always try to defend their posts about M by saying well.. look at the threads about Trump/Boris. when will people get that Trump/Boris are politicians they literally have our lives in their hands. unlike H&M who do not.

No, they have tax payers money though. They are answerable to the public who fund them . When they renounce their titles and stop taking ANY money from the Crown no one will care. Also stop taking side swipes at the rest of their family who have been left to pick up the pieces.

@BottomOfMyPencilCase

I think racism or any other kind of othering should be called out wherever it occurs I agree. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I think MN is very good at deleting posts that are racist. It saddens me that posters think MNers aren't capable of having a discussion or chat without animosity, rehashing years old threads and becoming entrenched into sides. We've always been able to do it in the past. We're not Twitter and actually what I dislike most about this tiny section of MN is that it feels a lot like Twitter sometimes.

I think you did make it clear. I was just adding my two pennorth

@Samcro

its odd that posters always try to defend their posts about M by saying well.. look at the threads about Trump/Boris. when will people get that Trump/Boris are politicians they literally have our lives in their hands. unlike H&M who do not.

Their physical features, weight etc have absolutely no bearing on their ability (or inability) to lead. Their policies and beliefs are absolutely up for debate and criticism but not their hair or anything else. In such blinkered defence of Harry and Meghan, some posters seem insistent that’s not the case whereas the reality is that it is. Likewise I don’t believe H&M (or anyone else’s) physical characteristics are there to attack or defend them about. What they do with taxpayers’ money etc is.

[quote BottomOfMyPencilCase]@boltzmannbrains I see it from both sides not just one. I realise you don't share that perspective but I'd prefer if you didn't deliberately misunderstand my posts. That's part of the tediousness I was referring to.

@Roussette I was talking about Twitter. Perhaps where we disagree is I see elements of that fandom on some of these threads as I see some of the fervent H&M bashers. But the moderation doesn't treat both sides equally.

FWR had to fight for clear modding guidelines maybe we need a thread in Site Stuff to argue the same for these threads. It should be simple:

No whataboutery
No derailing
No personal attacks on other posters (disagreeing with someone isn't a personal attack)
No reiteration of old threads or references to them
No smearing of all MNers/the MSM/the entire UK as racist (the UK does have a problem with racism and institutional racism but it's a serious topic that should be discussed separately not a smear used to suit down debate about other subjects imo)
No unfounded rumours against ANY members of the RF - that would mean stories in MSM can be discussed but not blinds or Sussex squad leaks
No attacks on RF staff members
No criticism of appearances

Any other suggestions?[/quote]
No pretence of or intentional misunderstanding to feign insult or indignation.

I also think we should look at the actual post and not only the stated intent of the post.

I had a post deleted yesterday (by mistake according to Lily from MNHQ, she said it would be reinstated, but it wasn’t) where I elaborated on this in relation to a post which also (fortunately) was deleted.

Just because you claim to support H&M, it doesn’t make it OK to trawl the internet for awful gossip which is too low and too crazy to even make the daily mail and then list that gossip here whilst expressing outrage. A lot of people may not have seen it, it is obviously horrific lies and should as such not be spread to a wider audience.

No, they have tax payers money though. They are answerable to the public who fund them . When they renounce their titles and stop taking ANY money from the Crown no one will care

So what tax payers money are we talking about? Just to be clear. Charles is funding their security no doubt. Please tell me how, as of today, I as a taxpayer are funding them?

Bottomofmypencilcase
Good post, just thinking through my answer

@KatherineParr4No, they have tax payers money though. They are answerable to the public who fund them . When they renounce their titles and stop taking ANY money from the Crown no one will care. Also stop taking side swipes at the rest of their family who have been left to pick up the pieces.

sorry posted too soon, don't get the last bit about side swipes.

@BottomOfMyPencilCase

No whataboutery
I know what whataboutery is but wonder how it would be defined in these threads. If I can’t bring up Andrew or Kate for instance, no one can post about HMQ, Beatrice & Eugenie, Sophie et al.
If that’s what you mean.

No derailing
What does that mean, what do you call derailing? When you have a genuine point of disagreement, or there’s a post that you wish to question, does that mean you can’t, because to post from an opposite viewpoint is deliberately derailing? I always find the accusation of derailing means that the majority view doesn’t want discussion, just validation.

No personal attacks on other posters (disagreeing with someone isn't a personal attack)
This is a peach. I have been called everything imaginable. I was going to list some of the personal insults I’ve had but decided that was not wise, there are many, so of course I would agree with this.

No reiteration of old threads or references to them
I welcome this, having had old posts and links regurgitated.

No smearing of all MNers/the MSM/the entire UK as racist (the UK does have a problem with racism and institutional racism but it's a serious topic that should be discussed separately not a smear used to suit down debate about other subjects imo)
Totally agree. But could I add that posters should not be accused of calling someone racist when they absolutely have not.

No unfounded rumours against ANY members of the RF - that would mean stories in MSM can be discussed but not blinds or Sussex squad leaks
How I wish. I support it wholeheartedly, and I presume by MSM we are not including gossip sites.

No criticism of appearances
How I would love for this to happen. There has been far far too much criticism of every aspect of M's appearance in the past. I welcome this.

I'd also like to add... maybe it would be a good idea to stop the endless posts of the ilk...
'I notice the fans aren’t here defending the book’ and ‘aren’t the fans quiet, haha, they’ve got nothing to say, they’re just embarrassed because they can’t defend H&M anymore’ type goady posts to wind people up.
We recently suddenly found out H&M had moved 6 weeks ago, without the press or anyone knowing, did those who are more on the pro side, gleefully post 'haha, see!? H&M are keeping quiet and not courting publicity, they've quietly moved and you didn't know, I bet you’ve got no comment on that!' ? No, we did not.

It's just goading and doesn't engender reasonable discussion and isn’t that what we want?

I also feel that any post that is responded to should be because of its content, not because of who wrote it. Surely that’s what a forum is about. We are all just randoms on the internet but I often feel I am unable to offer an opinion because the content of anything I post becomes secondary to the fact I’ve posted in the first place.

Can’t we try and take the ‘which side you’re on’ out of it and have reasonable discussion?

No doubt there will be a plethora of posts somewhere pointing out but I did this, I did that, how dare I say this when I said whatever…
We are all guilty of some of this. And it now depends on whether everyone wants to have an interesting, sometimes heated, but respectful discussion or not. We managed it on one thread… only just, but it takes real effort from everyone and I include myself in that. It just depends if posters are up for that. Or not.

Bottomofthepencilcase thank you for your post.

I think whataboutery and derailing are quite similar and blatantly obvious. It's the equivalent of going on a feminist thread and saying 'what about the menz?'
I do think if we weren't allowed to drag up old stories, old threads and rehashed arguments that would cover a lot of the derailing too.

So we speak just about current news and nothing from the past? Just want to be sure....

Agree in theory, but it is a bit tricky in reality. So many posters have left and new one come instead. They find something that has been discussed to death and go “Aha! This is a good new point”. Then what....?

And it now depends on whether everyone wants to have an interesting, sometimes heated, but respectful discussion or not. We managed it on one thread… only just, but it takes real effort from everyone and I include myself in that. It just depends if posters are up for that. Or not.

I am definitely up for that.