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?"

You'd have to be dumb as rocks to think quite intelligent is a compliment. 🤔

It depends on whether the person using it was (from a Mumsnet position) cisAtlantic or transAtlantic.

UK and Irish usage 'quite' = slightly

US usage 'quite' = very

A notoriously problematic word.

It depends on the adjective it’s used with too.
Quite right = completely right.
Quite good = moderately good (though perhaps depends on location as above…I never realised it varied with place).

You have been polite and considered, and I appreciate it. Sometimes my posts are short; that is just me an you shouldn’t read too much into it. I have a degenerative neurological disease in its late stages which means fatigue, including mental fatigue, is a huge problem for me.

Re: hostility of GC women - I feel the hostility of the women here (not all of them) is a different thing to GC women generally. When i mention hostility, I am meaning only the forum here, as that has been my experience. I can’t lie about that.

I’m not UK-based. In my country, it isn’t an insult in any way. It really isn’t.

Well now you've just learnt that culturally it would be interpreted as a 'backhanded compliment' in the UK - where you try to look like you are making a compliment on the surface but in reality it's meant as disguised but deliberate insult which is totally deniable if someone wants to wriggle their way out of it.

Naturally such linguistics don't go down well here.

You are quite quite on both.

It also highlights why some people’s accusations of ‘hostility’ can be that person’s (and this is a general reference) interpretation which may or may not meet other people’s definition of the word. Nor MN moderators. Yet others are then held to an individual’s definition when these general accusations are being made.

There is merit to the point that accusations of hostility can be used to bully a group. It is like the accusations of aggression when multiple people are responding to a publicly made post on an internationally open forum.

Sigh.

I apologise. I actually did mean I think the women here are really well-informed. There was no insult intended.

That poster called me “abusive” for complaining about other people being rude to me and others. So not buying it, and I’ve seen it all before.

People on this (UK) site will often reply with just "quite!" in response to a poster to signal agreement. I always thought 'quite!' was a Brit was of saying hear hear!

yes. We have seen it all before.

When some posters expect to be disagreed with gently rather than having issues with their points pointed out in blunt language they can never see that perhaps the issue is that open discussion boards that don't have a tight moderation policy may not be for them and they should not expect that community to fit into their personal standards which have a lower boundary regarding definitions of 'unkindness', 'tolerance' and 'hostility'.

It is particularly clear when people start name calling and misrepresenting what people generally believe and then complain that their posts are not being welcomed. For a start, I know of very few sites that are 'welcoming' of posters, but know of many closed communities on other social media platforms which are. This is not one of those closed communities.

And secondly, the rank hypocrisy of posts name calling and posting distorted characterisations of the general group is going to be fucking unwelcome behaviour even in one of those communities, yet these posters think they are righteously able to post that shit and be 'welcomed' for it.

Or where a poster uses righteous language to describe a person in the public eye that mischaracterises that person's position, or makes unfounded claims about a person and then cannot post evidence that supports that claim, and then declares they are being treated with hostility because their claims were shown to be unsupported and potentially false.

The list goes on. But it remains the same.

I think it’s called damning with faint praise. Intelligent, but not very much so.

No. What happened was this: I defended myself just a little bit. Meaning you felt you could call me rude. I have not done that to you or others despite provocation (the furthest I’ve gone is said the group is hostile, but that is not directed at a particular person). You and the others discuss me and my posts between yourselves - “Hmm, yes Eresh, the dissonance in these posts is fucking remarkable …” Can you not see how antagonistic this is?

I already explained this and apologised for the misunderstanding. It seems it is cultural.

the word “quite” is multi purpose, like the word “fuck”*. It can be used in a variety of situations to mean a variety of things, and if the origin of the use is British then expect it to be an example of understatement or sarcasm. In your example it would mean “well, exactly, it’s bloody obvious innit?”

*its a swear word, a noun, an adjective, a verb, an adverb etc. I love it.

We are also just defending ourselves. You used confusing terminology earlier on in the thread and rather than apologise for the confusion, you accused posters of being triggered.
I think that’s quite a hostile response which is pretty hypocritical in my book.

No, you were just rude. Not “defending yourself just a little bit”. Practice what you preach.

You said “just when I was beginning to take you seriously” about me, and you called others “triggered” and “childish”. That’s just rude. There is zero equivocation possible. If you don’t like my posts, feel free to ignore them and scroll on by.

Helle, why is it then the only board I have ever had issues on is this one? I have moderated communities before across various platforms and, to me, this is nonsense. The only real difference will the platform and community, not the moderation.

Absolutely.

Might you be part of the problem, perhaps? Have a look at your first post on this thread. You wrote “There is no debate allowed in this environment. None.”

Maybe I should add, all I see here is debate. Endless debate. The same debate, since 2013, making the same points. (Thanks to the person who pointed out the 2013 thread, you know who you are).

Thats a pretty damn definitive statement from you, who is (like me) a relative newcomer, for a thread whose debate has now gone on for 371 posts and counting.

You don't appear to be the blushing flower.

Well, considering on this thread you have misinterpreted and been misinterpreted, you tell me.

If the communities you moderate are closed communities or are about a specific issue that is non-political, there are numerous reasons for it to be different. And if your community that you are participating in is rarely attractive for male posters and female posters to make declarations that could be interpreted as tone policing and intending to share others for their beliefs, that also is a reason you probably don't see it. For instance, if you are moderating a community to save the Koalas in NSW National Parks, you are hardly likely to get people who are there to censure posters.

Tell us, do the moderation guidelines for those communities you moderate tell posters they have to be 'kind' and 'tolerant'? Do you moderate out any responds that are not 'gentle' in their disagreement? Maybe any disagreement has already been fucking moderated out. Maybe that community is not attractive to others to shame for wrong think and wrong speak like this board is.

This board has long been targeted by male activists and it still is.

I moderate a community too, it has over 10k members.

I 'moderate' a couple of communities too, they are very specific and no one bothers to troll there.

I guess my real come back to the 'I moderate communities' is, so fucking what.

This board is unique and endlessly targeted by poster to shame women who are discussing the issues that arise from male inclusion in female single sex provisions. Either someone wants to shut down any discussion or they want to shame women for not writing or speaking how that poster thinks that they should be writing or speaking.