FYI mountaineering metaphors

[NZdad]

I saw a rumour on Mumsnet last week about how mountaineering metaphors were not allowed. But no confirmation / explanation.

Well, I just got both when mumsnet deleted my thread about the NYTimes article on gender-neutral language in maternity settings etc.

I'm not fussed, mumsnet has the right to do what it likes of course.

I am confused though, I can't see how this language is problematic, I think it's widespread & applied to many issues, all the way back to "p**k oil" etc. Maybe someone can explain it to me?

----
Hi.

We're just getting in touch to let you know that we've deleted your thread here because we felt this section broke our talk guidelines:

"Has the NY Times p**ked? "

In this context, we consider the word, 'p**ked' not especially conducive to civil debate.

We know you'll be disappointed with our decision, but while we want to allow everyone to express their opinions on this issue, it's important that the debate remains civil and constructive. Feel free to repost whilst staying within the terms of our Talk guidelines.

Best wishes
MNHQ
----

It never has been signposted on the app. I find the guidelines by googling 'Mumsnet talk guidelines' (some of our detractors could do with reading the main page!) and then using the link.

I posted on a thread about fundraisers earlier. My point was that organisations are breaking equality laws with impunity, the only recourse seems to be for the women who are affected to fundraise, so at what point do we have enough evidence that this is a systematic problem that is having a disproportionate effect on women? How can we get the EHRC to step up?

I logged back in to see how the discussion was going and can't find that thread, but there's a new one by a woman who has been sacked from teaching.

We're not allowed to discuss Bunbury? Do you mean actually on the Bunbury thread?

Or are we not allowed to invoke her on another thread? I must have missed that.

It's got to be infuriating for TRAs that no matter how many words they tell mumsnet to censor, none of it actually works.

Personally, when trying to make people understand, I don't think that shorthand is always effective. Spelling it out, going into background, and showing context and implication really nails it home.

No-one outside these walls understands what Bunbury means, the same with the mountain metaphor. If you're not allowed to shorthand it just for the people you know, then you will be fully explaining it and reaching all the people who don't.

That's why it backfires.

I can't recall now the exact details, but yeah, a BB reference was deleted for NITS. Stupid search impedes.

No-one outside these walls understands what Bunbury means, the same with the mountain metaphor.

Maybe that's the objection? Perhaps it's objectionable for one group of people to have a discussion using their own specific terminology, which makes it implicitly unwelcoming to others.

But surely not every thread has to be an open-to-all debate. I don't read much on eg the Black Mumsnetters board, but I can't imagine that if threads there would be sanctioned for similar sorts of linguistic usage.

There seems to have been new mods recently or a change in modding - I’ve been deleted for factual medical information recently (really factual, stating a fact about which conditions are listed in the DSM-V) — which I think is absolutely unreasonable. It was even in the deletion message I got that it was “offensive” to say so (ie. to state a medical fact!) There was no offensive language or implication at all in what I wrote - it was just that someone reporting the thread just didn’t like that particular fact and wished it wasn’t true.

It’s one thing to ask posters to be “civil”; but when it comes to claiming that literal medical fact is offensive, then MN is clearly aligning itself with those who would like reality to be a certain way, when it is not actually that way. And that’s a way beyond requesting civility, I think.

Same goes for other perfectly reasonable metaphors that are not offensive, but it’s just that some people don’t like them. That’s not what civil debate is about — banning words, facts and phrasings that are perfectly uncontentious but they just don’t happen to fit your ideology.

Are posters about climate change going to be deleted for talking about peak oil? Is AIBU going to be policed for posters asking if we be reached the peak of the housing market yet? Or “peak crypto”?

Clearly not. So this is just evidence of a fairly craven appeasing of the adherents of one particular ideology.

Funny how 'cis' is hardly ever deleted.

Yep, funny that.

Funny how the thread questioning the efficacy of certain crowdfunders is deleted, but multiple 'gardening' threads encouraging Mumsnetters to donate aren't.

Tbf I'm not sure that get reported often, the tendency is to leave examples of other posters breaking the guidelines in place.

"Peak" is an offensive word? I see the word used in a lot of liberal media "Have we reached peak _", and usually used for certain trends (fashion, TV show themes etc).

Likewise the word 'groomed'.

Maybe we can lobby MN to revisit the notion that these words are worthy of deletion.

I just Googled (well, actually used Ecosia...) the single word "peak" and clicked on the News tab. First result was "Pinkwashing’s peak and the best of the backlash. Plus: who stole our focus?" from The Guardian two days ago.

Other results (ignoring literal usage like Peak District) in just the past few days included:

FTSE 100 Live: Brent crude price at post-invasion peak, European rates in focus (Evening Standard, 10 hours ago)

Canadian vehicle prices hit record high in May – but it may be the peak (Yahoo News UK, yesterday)

Don’t be offended, but we may have passed peak outrage (The Times, 5 days ago)

We're probably, maybe, just past the peak of inflation, says Pantheon Macroeconomics' Shepherdson (CNBC, 2 hours ago)

5 gorgeous frozen treats that are peak poolside aesthetic (Yahoo Finance, yesterday)

I really think @MNHQ needs to revisit the ban.

Groomed is more serious. There are other ways of expressing what 'peaked' is used for. But if people (this being MN, probably mostly parents) find a situation which appears to be grooming then it's completely wrong if that can't be discussed. (Obviously inaccurate and unfair generalisations aren't ever ok)

I searched google images for 'p€ak t£ans' and got this

Policing language to this level is just ridiculous and serves nobody well.

I’ve been modded a couple of times for saying ‘stnnng and brv’. ‘Sensational and courageous’ seems to be ok.

Given the context I’m not sure I’d get away with ‘spunky’.

Brace yourselves, everyone:

(in lieu of kendal mint cake)

I think it's unfair on first time posters. I've seen newcomers to this forum get deleted in one of their first ever posts, so many times. How can you be punished for a rule that you can only find out about through either infringing it, or being sent a PM?

I remember when someone got deleted for saying "Yawn", while someone else got deleted for saying "I'm so sorry". I don't think anyone's even pretending there are actual guidelines we can adhere to.

Sorry about the font, I copy-pasted from the email I got! There's no edit button, I guess I just get to look like a crazy person.

And the bolds come from trying to use a double-asterisk to replace "ea" in the P-word. An edit button would be nice!

If I ever type the words G p or A in a slightly different order it gets deleted, even though its a recognised psychological condition. No idea why as the messages presumably go to the email address I use for MN and I cant remember the password.

A biscuit emoji got deleted once.