AIBU to think that if MN are willing to boycott certain groups on ethical grounds

[APartridgeAmongThePigeons]

they really should take a look at banning posters proclaiming themselves MRAs?

Sexist,

often racist,

frequently rape/ domestic violence deniers

I know that mumsnet want to keep a lively discussion going and not ban free speech but when they join a forum mainly used by women it's hard to believe it's not about being goady and spewing propaganda.

The result is that normal posters get angry..
engage...

And then get deleted or banned for "personal attack".

Using a nasty word for someone who has by just stating that they are an MRA has basically said you don't matter as a human seems the normal response.

Sounds a bit oppressive. but then again the previously oppressed so often become the oppressors as soon as they get a chance.

and round and round the cycle goes.

I did report the poster but mn seem to let it allall stand despite it being obvious goady bollocks

I am interested to know when the oppressed have ever become the oppressors.

Scallop a few cases, Russia 1917, China 1911 and 1949, Germany 1933. Cuba 1953, France 1789. If you want to go back in history there has been loads of times the oppressed became oppressors.

But we are talking about a forum, not setting up a political structure to oppress MRA's.

Of course grennie, if mn were to shut down the gfers they would be oppressed and there would be no where else in the world a man could go to be heard.

Men's voice are so under in the current society

*under represented

In all those example Sausage the average person on the street just ended up being oppressed by a different group. The odd few became oppressors but the majority remained oppressed.

Yes silly me pigeons. The poor MRA's would not be able to lecture as about feminism, yes of course tehy will be oppressed.

There's one on here at the moment who is really giving me the creeps. so many of you are doing sterling work arguing with him but I can't even - ugh.
I think MRA shit is speech crime and I don't think MN should accept it.
I don't think there is the faintest chance whatsoever of persuading MNHQ about this because they have a really naive liberal muddle headed notion of "balance" on this issue.
Good luck on that thread, btw, those of you who are on it, not because you will get anywhere with him but because others will see it.

Look, when women are in charge, let's all try really hard not to oppress men, ok? Let's all try to have the imagination to remember that it was not very nice and not rape them, starve them, pass them about amongst ourselves as possessions, humilate them, or call ones we don't know "darling" in a patronising tone of voice. I do hereby undertake not to oppress men when I get the chance.

Now can we get on with trying not to be oppressed by them?

Yes Mildred. The reality is we spend our time trying to make things better for women.

There is a choice everyone make to post and engage with someone who is considered to be a troll or not. No one forces you too

you have a choice how to phrase what you say without it being deleted. The rules are there no one forces you to break them.

IMO the mumsnet rules are good, they support free speech whilst allow a mechanism for getting rid of people who break the rules.

Report report report. I reckon in 50% of posts or trolls I report are deleted. usually pretty quick. I have on occasion reported myself where I have stepped pretty close to the line.

The danger is that a group calls troll when anyone presents an opposing opinion. Troll hunting can cause distress to genuine posters.

Without freedom of speech there can be no discussion without discussion there can be no freedom. Women will always lose in that scenario

Banning a whole group of the population seems fairly horrific, Catch them quick when they break better

MNHQ does ban a lot of MRA trolls (often multiple times, the fuckers just keep re-registering ) if they judge that they are here to goad, they're very pretty hot on getting rid of the previously banned users too - who become easily recognisable after you've been here a while.

My personal opinion is that MRAs spout hate speech in the same way that the BNP/EDL does - you only have to look at their websites to see that they are thinly veiled incitement for hatred, and even violence against women, perpetuate rape culture and so on. The obvious ones now often start their posts "I'm not an MRA but...." and then spout a load of MRA nonsense.

I don't really mind that their posts are often left to stand - the rebuttals by MNers are usually so very good that they don't stand a chance. But I do sometimes think that if they just automatically deleted all the posts of banned users, they would be less keen on re-regging over and over. It's a problem, but I find the er, "subtle derailers" more annoying tbh. And they're are plenty of them about, staying under the radar.

actually I wouldn't have a problem with automatically rebanning an IP address which would solve the problem.... I wonder if that is possible?

I think they do ban the IP address - but there are some fairly simple ways around this. They find ways...

I think MRA shit is speech crime and I don't think MN should accept it.

Yeah that's it. I just see it as hate speech and I'm confused as to why it stands.

Sabrina is right about IP addresses, But it doesn't hurt to do it to keep the really stupid ones off.

I think banning them and deleting them is the best and as soon as they make it clear they are here only to goad. Before they get their bloody hooks in. I think letting their comments stand is probably not great if it is spreading lies. Unless there is a general warning under the comment such as

this poster is an MRA and the above content has been proven to be categorically untrue and an obnoxious rape myth etc

How do you identify a MRA member? Do they have to state that they are?

'this poster is an MRA and the above content has been proven to be categorically untrue'

Mmmm, I'd take it easy with the categorically untrue spiel tbh, lest people take the time to pull apart your own 'truths'.

This all sounds very much like 'I hate these people, and other people who disagree with me and say things I don't like, therefore we should ban them'. As a large swathe of people disagree with your views, it's rather a good job such censorship doesn't exist, no?

Maybe MRA's (or at least self-identified MRA's) aren't banned as, just maybe, they have as much right to air space as you, and aren't as goading as you believe them to be. Unless, of course, 'I disagree, what about looking at things this way' is goading?

Btw, you were banned because you quite often PA posters. HTH.

Most say they are MRAs or link to MRA sites.

*Sorry, not banned, I meant deleted.

I've seen non MRAs link to their website.
Is there a spectrum of MRAs, like religious people. Or do they all have the same views.
I'm not a Conservative party member, but I liked some of their policies at the last election.
Can you attribute one view to all feminists? Does the extreme version speak for all? If someone supports one aspect of feminism, does that make them a feminist?

"How do you identify a MRA member? Do they have to state that they are?"

I was described as an MRA once (and liar, provocative, goady) Want to ban me?

I think it is wrong to look to a label, instead of delaing with individual posts. I think it is theorising beyond the evidence to see a conspiracy to cause a particular effect in one bit of the Internet (though I have heard that even MNetters have used FB to rally people to post on a particular thread - though I hope that's wrong).

Individuals who gain warped satisfaction from provocation will return to the places where the reaction is most certain and predictable.

I think MNHQ might want to see if there is anything that can be done to improve speed of deletions (or try a 'lock thread' option as a holding response whilst they decide).