Late night surprise about reputation of FWR

[IwantToRetire]

I was on Site Stuff to report back on ongoing freezing and noticed another thread about whether Mumsnet should apologise about deleting threads about ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

And there were some comments about there being a border line between legitimate criticism of Israel's policies and anti semitism. And it is this last that get these threads deleted.

So was surprised to see some comment on this thread saying it was as bad as some threads on FWR, and those particularly at fault are thos with a GC view point.

(Funnily enough AI suggested a title for this thread along the lines of "Are FWR debates judged differently ..... " but now it has hidden its suggestion, just when I was going to use it.)

Oh its come back

"Are sex and gender debates on FWR judged by different standards?"

I can only copy and paste about 1 time out of 5 attempts these days. I've no clue what's gone on with MN recently.

As Fluffy said, it was quoting/replying that the poster was complaining about, which is rather unreasonable.

Explicit tagging of contributors can be perceived as rude but the automatic notification of the author when a post is replied to is something that can only be switched off by that author not by the person replying to the post.

They can also turn off tagging notifications. If they don't want to know if they're being replied to (either by quoting or tagging) they're at liberty to change their settings. They are also at liberty to ignore any replies / tags if they so desire.

There's nothing in the Talk Guidelines re tagging being rude. I'm pretty sure most people I've seen moaning about being tagged are complaining about the notification, not the tag itself.

It is actually trying to control and stop how others respond to your self published content on a discussion board that is open to the public to accuse a person of aggression for responding to your own posts the way that BlackCat has been accused.

People raising legitimate discussion points in reply to your (general you) own discussion points is what an open access forum is about. That a poster might quote post any number of a single person’s posts is not even unusual. It is how anyone can interact within the guidelines of the forum.

To declare that interaction as being aggressive means that poster needs to make a decision. Either this type of discussion board has a way to turn off notifications and if so, that is for the poster to find out and turn off, or if the poster finds the interaction distressing in anyway they might need to decide if this type of discussion board suits their needs.

Maybe they need a strictly controlled access group discussion where not only is access strictly monitored and controlled but also any interaction too. Like a tightly controlled private Facebook group where not only access, but tone and content are very strictly moderated.

This accusation was made by another username on a difference thread yesterday and it has been made a number of times previously by different usernames too.

I remember one user complained the posters should answer gently if they are disagreeing, while accusing others of hostility etc. I doubt they even thought about their hypocritical situation. Where they expected to be able to be treated gently while labelling others in a non-gentle accusation.

I think back in the day many people didn’t like it, but it’s commonplace to tag users all the time online now so most people have just turned off the notifications - there isn’t much point complaining about very typical online behaviour.

Yes. Complaining about how the internet works should very much be seen as a 'them' problem, not the problem of the people using the internet in a standard way.

You need to go to the notification settings in your account to choose when and how you're notified (or otherwise).

It's pretty much the same as complaining about 'tone' isn't it?

Feeling unable to address what's being said, the focus shifts to the mechanism by which it's being said.

Whether that's just to express disapproval in a general sense or from some deep seated desire to shut the conversation down, I'm not sure.

Thank you for clarifying @ItsNotOrwell though I’m a bit mystified now.

You’ve said you agree in the importance of sex and the safety and dignity of women and safeguarding of children. Dare I say the view of the majority of this board. At the same time on this thread, there’s an impression that you agree or support those who label the tone of FWR responses as aggression and nastiness ie the ‘both sides’ accusation.

Saying its both sides implies TRAs and GC women are equally bad. This claim is very hard to swallow when on one side, it’s women asking for their legal rights to be upheld. And the other side make death and rape threats, throw urine, physically assault women, scream, make loud noises to prevent discussion, and physically disrupt and threaten women’s gatherings.

If we can't be shut down by valid and logical arguments, they default to no debate.

If we can't be shut down by stopping debate, they default to dodgy data and questionable studies.

If we can't be shut down by dodgy data and trying to discredit highly respected and neutral source they default to emotive and manipulative blackmail.

If we can't be made to feel guilty enough to change our minds, they default to smears and ostracising.

If we can't be shut down by calling us names and trying to get us sacked, they default to tone.

If we can't be shut down by complaining about the way in which we say 'this is bollocks', they default to threats.

So this thread is effectively one level above rock bottom but that's not saying much.

We've gradually been working our way down this list on MN over time. There's not much further left to go in demonstrating this as a MR movement hell bent on shitting on and silencing women.

”It's pretty much the same as complaining about 'tone' isn't it?”

I also liken it to the undermining style interactions we often see across AIBU and here and I am sure other boards too. A poster will make an undermining and shaming post about a group of people, sometimes on a specific board referring to the regular posters, then complain about the pushback they have received.

There does seem to be a type of person who wants to be able to make an accusation towards a group of people and not have that accusation pushed back on or interacted with except for positive reaction. It is not a reasonable expectation to be able to prevent or shape other people’s responses to such accusatory and shaming posts but it has been noted that some people do have that expectation.

In the case of many of these posters, I think they do actually agree with what is said on this board (on most points).

But they have internalised us as the 'bad side' so they have to overcome that dissonance somehow, which is what I think is going on.

There does seem to be a type of person who wants to be able to make an accusation towards a group of people and not have that accusation pushed back on or interacted with except for positive reaction.

I think that aligns with the reaction they get elsewhere and what they expect to get again. It's a shock to get pushback.

@Helleofabore your comments are interesting.

Maybe they need a strictly controlled access group discussion where not only is access strictly monitored and controlled but also any interaction too. Like a tightly controlled private Facebook group where not only access, but tone and content are very strictly moderated. This accusation was made by another username on a difference thread yesterday and it has been made a number of times previously by different usernames too. I remember one user complained the posters should answer gently if they are disagreeing, while accusing others of hostility etc. I doubt they even thought about their hypocritical situation. Where they expected to be able to be treated gently while labelling others in a non-gentle accusation.

I’ve seen the influences of bekind on campus to not offend anyone. Generally started by professional services. And I’ve seen how that ends up only working one way. How challenges are labelled as aggression or attacks. Perhaps in part from everyone’s social media experiences of moderated posts with anything offensive deleted or those deemed aggressive or guilty of wrong think thrown out of groups. Plus, algorithms. Making us all snowflakes?

It can feel hard on the ego to be caught out with a weak or unreliable argument. But that’s how arguments are improved. Do we need to bring back formal debates in school. Start young so being challenged becomes the norm. I’ve heard this happens at Eton. Probably good for us all.

Yep. Definitely sets the tone for the entire conversation. As a general rule posters on FWR tend to give the benefit of the doubt until demonstrated otherwise. Which if you are reading from the script doesn't take very long at all.

Poster A OP
Why is MN so full of hate? I've heard it's really bigoted. It's unkind to use preferred pronouns, it doesn't cost you anything.

MN poster
Gives examples of why pronouns are not kind, disrespect women and harm women and children

Poster A
Oh that's all unimportant and irrelevant. I don't believe that. Starts goon about their very nice friend and how we've never met anyone trans

MN poster
Explains they have lived experience of very close relatives or friends who were nice and then act in ways which are incredible abusive and demand everyone walks on eggshell. Poster explains they have long standing mental health issues and are autistic and they are concerned for the well-being of their loved one

Poster A
You hate transpeople. You should be looking at this (bullshit) information or your loved one will kill themselves. Then goes into a rant virtue signalling how accepting they are (often of people they don't know well) as comparison

MN poster
Explains that this is still harmful, that evidence is long since been shown to be nonsense and is very clearly utter nonsense and how more robust data is showing quite the opposite which raises long term questions about health and mental wellbeing with an affirmation only approach because ultimately you can never actually change sex

Poster A
Usually starts getting pretty shitty with name-calling at this point and accusations of being far right despite a couple lack of evidence.

This has now led to MNetters checking out at the demands for pronouns and going na we are not having this same conversation where you don't listen all over again - there's zillions of them and they all demonstrate pissing in the women's pool to try and force out women.

We are done with it at this point. It's a question of go away and read and we'll come back when you have caught up or are willing to actually engage rather than pre-judging us and expecting us to fawn.

Tbh I think the lack of willingness to fawn from the start is really the issue...

I don’t think GC women are anything near the same level as TRAs.

Thanks, but I don’t use either of those platforms. I can see you’re trying to paint me as a bit of blue-hair leftie here. I’m actually more of a centrist that uses X and has brunette hair. All good?

I'm collecting examples of insults and, er, aggressions, towards anti-GC posters. So far on this thread we have one "you're an idiot", one instance of calling "diddums" - which I thought was particularly cutting - and one potential case of over-replying or over-tagging, which may have been a misunderstanding over timezones. Or something.

Yes keating, I am a member of some private Facebook groups with very strict and heavy handed moderation. The rules usually have ‘be kind’ mentioned.

I think there are people who view that the rest of the internet should be moderated that way. Which is frankly absurd. If you need that style of moderation, there are groups and platforms for you. If you want to express your opinion and never have a negative response, there are groups for that. An open and professionally moderated discussion board may not suit you because if you express an opinion you will fucking get responses you cannot control and shouldn’t be expecting to have controlled to suit your personal level of ability to cope with negativity.

If a person crosses to bullying behaviour then that is against the guidelines on MN. The moderation is done carefully and with thought. But the moderation is not done to suit a person’s individual standards. If someone is unhappy with the moderation standards, they should complain to MNHQ.

I remember talking with my teen a few years ago when they were studying in high school about how uni lecturers should not be challenging opinions when it came to what they considered highly sensitive political issues. As parents we were shocked by this because we had thought we had taught our child to always think critically, to go to original sources to check information and to evaluate all views.

Our teen was upset that we disagreed and said that university is exactly the place to debate highly sensitive political issues within reason.

I've had the joyless experience of posting on boards (The Doghouse, mostly) where I know there will be a lot of active posters, who 'know' each other on the board, who will disagree with me vehemently. I say what I say because I think it's important, and I wait for the pushback.

The first round usually sees them quoting stuff at me and me quoting other stuff back, as well as offering my own experiences. By round 2 or 3 I'm expecting personal insults (of the 'you're spouting BS', 'I have lost patience with you and you are cruel', 'people who are cruel should not have dogs' and name-calling).
ETA I also get accused of lying. I don't, FWIW. I try to be scrupulously honest when posting about such stuff (other than anything identifying).

The thing is, I accept that I'm pissing into their pool, as RTB puts it. The Doghouse is force-free central (some influential posters won't even say no to Fluffy), and so I know I will be outnumbered, bollocked and hauled over the coals. Most of them are, I think, decent people, so I do my best to stay calm and rational, to set my arguments out clearly and back them up, and disagree in a civil manner.

I don't go all waily-wail about people disagreeing with me, calling me names and lecturing me about handling high-drive dogs when they've got a cavapoo or whatever.

It's not nice to be Ms Unpopular on a board, but if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. And if you can't back up your argument (or don't even have one), expect heat. Lots of it. Especially on emotive topics where other posters have strong opinions.

Thanks again for clarifying. However, I would dispute the ‘near the same level’ implying that the GC women (a mixed bag) are aggressive, just not to the same degree as the TRAs.

I don’t see aggression. I see women fighting hard for their legal and moral rights to single sex spaces and protection of vulnerable children. Who do so at great personal risk to themselves.

And I see women on FWR getting fed up of being told to speak nicely when fighting for their rights, when explaining why they’re fighting for their rights, and when those telling them to speak nicely never ever engage with the substantive arguments or address the harder questions. So if women on these threads don’t speak nicely, swear, and sound fed up, it’s because they are.

I’ll leave it here. You see aggression. I see frustrated, annoyed and justifiably angry women who are tired of the law being thwarted and fed up of TRAs tactics ranging from threats to emotional blackmail trying to silence them.

@EdithStourton I had similar experience on a long running Starmer bashing thread. I challenged some pretty wild claims and was met with vehement disagreement. As it was specifically a Starmer bashing thread, I thought fair enough and left.

If saying diddums is aggressive, then fuck me all hope is lost. It's despair at others wanting the moon on a stick and throwing a tantrum when they don't have everyone tripping over themselves to agree.

No is still the answer however they want to frame it and if they don't like it tough. It really is like dealing with toddlers.

I'm fed up to the back teeth of individuals on her playing a game (and yes I do think it's seen as a game by some) to come here spout a load of crap and expect everyone to just roll over and be doormats and act like nodding dogs.

We've been on a full journey on MN in recognising issues, finding there's a black hole of information that should be there but has been deliberately suppressed and when we've asked perfectly reasonable and legitimate questions in line with normal due diligence and accountability found authorities and organisations massively wanting. We didn't start here and lots of us who were in the middle ground camp came to the realisation that it simply doesn't exist and it's just a manipulation tactic. We can not back track from that without causing harm unfortunately. Not with everything we now know that we perhaps didn't five years ago.

Not because of feelings and entrenchment. But because of cold hard, unemotive evidence that puts the whole shebang into a space which is deeply troubling. We've never moved to the left or right. Ultimately we've stayed exactly where we are in saying sex is not gender and never will be, even if we thought ways to manage that could be worked out.

The final straw really has been post Cass with the sheer number of people saying "third spaces aren't enough, we are going to break the law and try and stop women from maintaining their dignity" and this determination to continue to put this notion into kids heads that you can change sex and it's a magic bullet to solve their issues.

I've been a poster who has been in a minority in the past. I'm not arsed. I know I can make a argument and get people going "oh actually, I hadn't thought of that and shit that's actually important even if I still don't fully agree with you".

In fact that's a lot of the dynamic of how this whole situation has got to the point it is in the UK. Individual women standing up in front of the world and powerful organisation who were seemingly all against them and vilifying them. And thank fuck for that rather than the equivalent of everyone being endlessly polite whilst hitting themselves in the head with a hammer for fear of upsetting anyone else. It's just not healthy behaviour.

I don't think we should be standing on ceremony for those people who can't cope with a good argument and being challenged.

Raise your game instead and learn that it's not just about how you argue. You actually have to have a decent argument worth putting out there in the first fucking place.

There isn't two sides to upholding a fantasy and observing and describing reality. That's the fatal flaw in this nonsense. This isn't going to change any time soon either.

Diddums is in response to childish accusations of aggression on MN when there's been such hostile behaviour including actual violence and death threats dished out to women using their lawful free speech to challenge being shat on from great height.

Honestly, it's a total cop out from real life and wanting to live in a fluffy cloud like land of make-believe that doesn't exist. They need to grow up and stop using censorship to sanitise anything that they remotely dislike or disagree with.

I don’t know what else I can say, really. Whatever I write gets picked apart. That wasn’t what I meant at all.