Lang Cleg 2

[TiredofthisBSbutIstandwithLang]

New thread as we got to 1000.

Oh for goodness sake. The TRAs are the coercive controllers and MN are the unwitting facilitators. That’s just a fact. It’s why we can’t speak biological truth. They told you to stop us so you did. It’s why we can’t say xyz person with a penis is the m word. Because they told you to stop allowing it.

@michaelmumsnet are you now saying there were no private messages displaying rudeness and aggression on LangCleg's part?

I'm glad the mods have explained the situation. I'm sure they didn't take the decision to ban lightly. Some members need to get over 'there's always someone else to blame' attitude.

@MichaelMumsnet do you think that accusing a group of women, who are sharing concerns and politely asking considered and very important questions, of "haranguing" and "shouting at" people is rude? Because that feels rude on this side of the screen, for sure.

PS That screenshot makes me actually quite glad for my blood pressure that I'm banned. Well I for one, am very proud of being an Anti Social Weirdo

Good point bint

It's been clear for a while something os going on. Seems people who are noticing and calling it out are being hunted down and banned one by one.

The guidelines are becoming harder and harder to work within. Not because of wanting to be rude but because simple facts and phrases that have been used repeatedly up til now suddenly become an issue.

Agree with Above poster too. It will come out. People will see. We know.

Hasn't... Sorry, I'm just working this through.. Hasn't lang's banning, which is what at least one monitor has openly admitted was their aim, proven her exactly right?

MichaelMumsnet, referring to your post, I really hope this isn't a case of miscommunication and misunderstanding!
Surely Lang repeatedly said that MNHQ was being coercively controlled? Not that MNHQ were the agents, ie doing the coercive controlling?

That's how I understood it anyway.

Still waiting for a retraction on the generalised accusation of haranguing and shouting by the way.

Imagine if Tesco replied to complaints with those words

Surely Lang repeatedly said that MNHQ was being coercively controlled? Not that MNHQ were the agents, ie doing the coercive controlling?

This bears repeating.

Wait, what?!

Lang Cleg pointed out on multiple occasions that the mods were being subjected to coercive control by a bunch of self appointed external monitors, ie some odd gloaty blokes with lots of sock puppets.

Nowhere can I recall her accusing MN mods of any such thing.

Ffs. This is epically stupid.

Surely Lang's point was that @mnhq is the victim of coercive control?

Oh yeah, & you've just proved her right.

We are all saying the same thing. You are being coercively controlled. That’s the whole point.

I had an ex who was almost always nice, but once in a while would act in a subtly abusive way.

When I would bring up that what he was doing was a kind of abuse, and tell him I wanted to work through it because I didn't think he meant it, he flew off the handle. HOW DARE I accuse him of being an abuser? If I was going to call him an abuser, he might as well act like one, he'd say, and go on rampages where he'd break stuff or kick me out of the house.

Nothing else made him even a tenth as angry. It was the topic I was Not Allowed to bring up.

I don't know why I'd mention that here. Just saying for some reason.

@MichaelMumsnet I think that you have misunderstood.

Yes, Lang's view, as I understood it, was that the moderators were subject to coercive control by the monitors (i.e. those activists who monitor posts on FWR and target various posters for deletion - see the Twitterer above).

Apologies will be accepted. But if you start banning anti social weirdos there will be nobody left to post

Sounds like JP is worried. Narcs need their feed.

Michael's post confused me.

Even though I haven't been on this board as a regular, I thought that Lang was saying that the moderators were being controlled, not doing the controlling. Otherwise, the suggestion that mods should take the freedom programme would make no sense.

If this is correct, then rather worryingly it means that MNHQ haven't been very thorough in their checks before banning a superb poster.

Ha - you all beat me to the same point!

I’d say MNHQ are now trying to gaslight us. But that probably isn’t ok either. So I won’t.

I always took Lang’s comments about mods and coercive control to be that Mumsnet rules and the moderation system was being used a a tool by transactivists, and that the transactivists were the coercive controllers, not the mods. Hence the recommendations (pleas?) for the staff to do the Freedom Programme, so that the mods would be able to better recognise aspects of coercive control within the reports received (and not because the mods themselves were coercive controllers). That is, that the mods (male and female) would benefit from the stuff aimed at women escaping abuse, not the stuff aimed at reforming abusers.

All my interpretation of course, not an attempt at ‘we have always been at war with Eastasia’!
I suspect we are all digging down into bunkers rather than looking at the whole picture. Lang’s eye is on the safeguarding women and children prize, Justine’s is on the protect my employees prize. Both good aims.
I just don’t personally believe they are mutually exclusive.

FWIW I don’t want any Mumsnet mods to have shitty work lives (nor anyone else in a customer facing job. I once got needlessly angry and impatient with a man who was trying to help me use a self service checkout, while I was running late for a train. I humphed out of the station supermarket, got about ten paces down the concourse and was overcome with remorse and shame. I went back and apologised, he gave me a hug and I got the next train instead.
Now it’s The Day I Hugged the Supermarket Guy rather than The Day I Behaved Like an Arse at the Station).

I thought Lang took steps to make clear each time it's the monitors who are being the coercive controllers.
Did you think "monitors" referred to moderators, @JustineMumsnet ? It's been repeated so often in so many posts even I, who don't really know anything about coercive control, could repeat that bit back to you.

Yes, Lang always made it very clear. It's a misunderstanding. @JustineMumsnet please reconsider.

Surely Lang repeatedly said that MNHQ was being coercively controlled? Not that MNHQ were the agents, ie doing the coercive controlling?

This bears repeating.

That's exactly what she's been saying. It's why it has been suggested that mods do the freedom programme. The freedom programme is advised for the victim not the abuser.

And given that so many of us here have been victims ourselves surely MNHQ can't take offence at that?

I am so glad I don't work in MNHQ. For the first time ever. So glad.

I agree with what many others have said, Lang's posts were pointing out that the moderation system, under the new rules, was being used as a tool of coercive control by transactivists.
I always saw it as a plea to the moderators to understand they were being used and not a personal attack.
I would always agree with her suggestion that the moderators undergo training on coercive control so they can see this and tackle it