Lang Cleg 2

[TiredofthisBSbutIstandwithLang]

New thread as we got to 1000.

Grey rock works for me in that scenario. In the absence of the facility to hide a GFs posts, I grey rock and my scrolling finger gets some exercise
OK, can see that - although if you (general you) wanted to "grey rock" someone surely you'd just grey rock (ignore) the poster?
As there's nothing wrong with that, reply who you like to.
Several people posting pics of grey rocks and announcing to the thread that they're grey rocking every time a poster posts something they don't like, how is that ignoring though?
Surely people can tell the difference. And that if you were on the receiving end it'd feel pretty shitty.

Vitriol, you've summed it up for me perfectly.

NEVER have we made it difficult for genuine posters with robust arguments to post.

Oh my word!!!!

Yeah you have. It's just that you think you can be judge and jury as to who is a genuine poster or not. Basically anyone who disagrees with you is judged to not be genuine, or a man!

As Justine said, this site welcomes debate and different opinions. It really isn't for you or anyone else, to invite genuine posters to bring their robust arguments - seriously, who died and left you in charge?

If I’m not prepared to lie about someone’s sex then no, the guidelines are not ‘fair to both sides’.

And that’s before you get to all the hazy stuff around Karen White being a man (mostly ok but sometimes not) whereas lesser criminals with a penis are usually not men (unless they are). Honestly this whole mess stems from not being allowed to say truthful things and that never leads to clarity or good decisions or happiness.

There are plenty of GC posters on here who do manage it.

Oh my word!!!!

Yeah you have

Exactly! (note, I'm agreeing with someone, it's not my words before someone else gets mixed up)

I thought the way the comment italliced the words genuine and robust interesting - in other words if you're not deemed genuine or robust enough, all the bollocks starts up to make it hard to engage/put you off/try and discredit you.
And how is that a debate? If the only voices you want to hear are ones that you agree with?

In a scenario where we're discussing regulatory capture, the loss of civil liberties, anyone whistleblowing has to put themselves on the line.

The current line protects people who pose a threat. That's the whole reason we are concerned, that's why most women are here. Whistleblowers make themselves targets, anybody nodding along to the status quo will be tickety boo and yes, most unlikely to 'break guidelines'.

So, Lang has tried to raise an alarm, point out red flags, draw parallels between the dynamics of the situation and coercive control, and as so often happens, the messenger has been shot.

Same as Maya Forstater has done, being sacked for trying to raise the alarm. Same as all the other women who have been no-platformed, banned, 'cancelled', threatened, intimidated and pilloried.

All this deletion has done has shown very clearly how the machinations of power have been manipulated and used to suppress whistleblowing. All the deletion does is prove Lang's point, in quite a glaringly obvious way.

It's just that you think you can be judge and jury as to who is a genuine poster or not. Basically anyone who disagrees with you is judged to not be genuine, or a man!

, and forgot to say, a million times this!

What Binterested and ScrimshawTheSecond said.

No point repeating it, they have hit the nail on the head.

There are plenty of GC posters on here who do manage it.
Yes, we do, but it is not easy, requires a fairly high level of literacy and requires us to not tell the truth (even if we manage to avoid actually lying), which for some may be extremely challenging due to neurodiversity for example. It limits how and what we can discuss - it censors us, in order to appease those who disagree with us (and wish, threaten and sometimes enact actual harm on us, as well).

Binterested
ScrimshawTheSecond

Excellent points

What ScrimshawTheSecond said times a thousand

It's just that you think you can be judge and jury as to who is a genuine poster or not. Basically anyone who disagrees with you is judged to not be genuine, or a man!

Ridiculous. I've had lots of discussions on here with people who disagree with me. I've spent far too much time today doing just that. I don't think the particular poster I've been discussing with today has very robust arguments though, and seems unable to process the information they are being given.

I think they are genuine but misguided and not very well informed, as well as somewhat slow to process new information. But of course they might just be goady and perhaps my posts are all over twitter now.

and requires us to not tell the truth (even if we manage to avoid actually lying)

This is the thing I object to most about the guidelines - it compels us to lie, tie ourselves in verbal knots trying to make our point, or not speak at all.

I found myself typing "men, you know actual men who identify as male" so as not to be accused of calling transwomen "men" - I think I gave up in the end, but it was when talking about the men (actual men, identifying as men) leaving reviews of M&S knickers.

Grey rock comment - if I have grey rocked you (general you), it's because grey rock is a technique for not getting dragged into bad faith and goady argument. Due to my personal history, I can sometimes need a reminder to 'grey rock'.

If you (general you) feel 'isolated' by being grey rocked by me, you (general you) might like to think about the ways in which you have not been a fair partner in debate.

It has zero to do with disagreement, everything to do with getting dragged into circular and often groundless debate over minor issues.

Regarding abiding by the rules, the point has been frequently made that it's not a level playing field. Some people (neurotypical, as one example) may find verbal gymnastics relatively bearable and manageable. Some other people (abuse survivors, new posters, autistic posters etc) may not.

For example, my deletions were based on the understanding that while, 99.9% of the time, anyone who self ID's as the opposite sex must be referred to that way, there is an exemption for males behaving abusively (and I would put JP lying publicly about Hebe in this category). This felt reasonable to me, as being an abuse survivor myself, I feel unable to lie in this .1% of situations.

Confusingly, posts made under that exemption 'had to be' deleted ie because somebody felt that it was worth reporting, but do not attract a strike because ' we do know it's a difficult situation'.

So not clear at all.

I want to publicly acknowledge, because it's related the response I got when I reported my own post, that Mumsnet mods kindly made sure I received a response from a female moderator, as requested. Mods, I really truly appreciate that you did that. It made a difference.

I've worked in an online environment much like MNHQ for many years in a moderator/customer support role. All our communication to members is via email. I'm viewing Justine's comments differently to Michael's, it's nothing to do with sex or gender. Justine is the CEO she has a different skillset and role, we only unleash our CEO on members as a last resort. However, I'm assuming Michael has been employed in a role similar to mine. I would never get away with the personal language used in his posts. It may be how I feel inside, but it's no way to diffuse a situation, as I think we've seen.

Customer support is bloody hard work at times, but I'm not there to be liked or appreciated, I'm there to keep the site flowing with the least disruption. Some days I'm sworn at over and over again, as someone said upthread the key is to emotionally disengage, not to take it personally. When you have an angry user, stop, think and read between the lines to see where it's coming from. Nobody likes criticism, but I never saw anything but constructive criticism from Lang, obviously I don't know what was said in private discussion. However, I expect she expressed exasperation that was met with exasperation. We have those users that everyone dreads to respond to, sometimes it takes a day to craft the perfect email in response to them - you have to second guess their response to everything you write and leave no room for them to come back while still being polite.

I find it quite naive to think that the 'monitors' will all be new users. Disruptors of a site can be inventive in creating profiles. People intent on causing mischief, know how to infiltrate places. It's, errrrrrrrr, why safeguarding exists...

Ridiculous. I've had lots of discussions on here with people who disagree with me.
So because it hasn't happened to you personally, it can't possibly be happening to anyone and it's "ridiculous?"
No, that's what's ridiculous. The flat out "la, la, la not listening, it's not happening" fingers in ears you get on here when people are telling you that yes, actually, it DOES.

tie ourselves in verbal knots trying to make our point, or not speak at all

This, i have to caveat so much

Re genuine posters vs goady posters.

Genuine posters, even if they disagree intensely, do tend to engage in a set of behaviours that indicate a genuine desire to communicate.

There include (but are not limited to) clarifying the argument they hear from others to make sure they hear it correctly, attributing good will to their opponent, establishing common ground to develop good will.

I don't come here to argue that gender should be reified. A critique of gender is at the heart of feminism and women's rights. It's on the lid. I come here to read and understand threats to women's rights, and feminist repsonses.

If you (general you) come here as an opponent to a critique of gender and a defence of women's rights - which is very clearly delinated by the board title - then I will listen to you if you are a good faith opponent demonstrating the above (and similar) behaviours in your arguments.

Really, it's up to proponents of gender, and opponents of women's rights to bring their best behaviour into this space, if they want to be listened to, and not their worst. Because this is not their space.

If transpeople and other gender fans, who are anti women defending their rights, had an online space in which they made such arguments, and I wanted to go into their space and argue against them, they'd have exactly the same right to expect that I brought my best - not my worst - debate behaviour.

As I don't go into genderist space to tell genderists they are wrong and terrible people, it's been a moot point for me so far.

The reversals are amazing. Yes, sure, FWR are the 'no debate'rs. 😄

Mods, I really truly appreciate that you did that. It made a difference

Thats very nice of you to say

So, Lang has tried to raise an alarm, point out red flags, draw parallels between the dynamics of the situation and coercive control, and as so often happens, the messenger has been shot.

Same as Maya Forstater has done, being sacked for trying to raise the alarm. Same as all the other women who have been no-platformed, banned, 'cancelled', threatened, intimidated and pilloried.

So discouraging to see this happening here. One of the best content creators here booted. How can a site for parents not value a poster who has done so much for promoting safeguarding, even if they aren't nice enough about it? And the point about protecting the moderators feelings would resonate more with me if I hadn't felt insulted/patronized by moderator's posts here before.

Another point for the sacred caste.

Cwenthryth don’t think grey rock/recipes etc are posted to provoke a reaction btw, at all, rather to demonstrate that goady fuckers will not provoke a reaction and will not be responded to

Yup, a grey rock post, much like all the many similar trends that have passed through these halls, is shorthand for “this poster is a goady fucker”, hence the need to post the grey rock, rather than just not engaging.

It’s used frequently to see of posters who voice different viewpoints.

Like many of the other trends used to harry dissenters and drive them out of GC territory (DARVO, Duluth’s wheel, rules of misogyny for example) it’s a term originating from the sphere of abusive and harmful behaviours.

It’s actually really fucking hurtful to be labelled with terms used for abusers, and called a goady fucker for the high crime of joining in the debate with a position that isn’t totally wholeheartedly GC orthodoxy.

The claim that this board welcomes and “begs” for debate is a fucking joke, and ha sheen for years.

There are posts on this actual thread that literally claim the FWR board as GC territory, for GC posters only.

At least some of you are honest enough to admit that.

And add me to the women uncomfortable with men moderating a FWR board.

I did not know this was the case until recently, and made the assumption that all moderation to do with women's rights was done by women.

A man could be the nicest, best man in all the world, and he still has no business being 'in charge' of women's speech on a feminist board.

I think if Mumsnet do not want this board to be about feminism and women's rights, with the expectations that come with it, including female moderation of female speech, they need to rename the board.

I previously suggested 'Ladies Chit Chat' :)

If you (general you) feel 'isolated' by being grey rocked by me, you (general you) might like to think about the ways in which you have not been a fair partner in debate.

So, grey rock (the actual technique, rather than posting pictures and encouraging others to follow) is a fair way to behave and should be respected because no one is owed a response?

So how come those of us who post in opposition will be badgered and goaded because we might not have answered a particular question, or more to the point, have not given an answer that is judged acceptable? Why are we not extended the same courtesy of not having to respond?