Is intolerance getting worse on GN?

Sorry Doodledog I misread your post. I thought it was about posting a link.

"trouser"
www.gransnet.com/forums/chat/1338034-Angela-Rayner-ghastly-trouser-suit#:~:text=Angela%20Rayner%20ghastly-,trouser,-suit.
I think this is the link.

Samsara1

Well saidkittylester I certainly hope no-one has been rude to you who is unfailingly pleasant and well balanced. A pleasure to know you. Fancy a cuppa some time soon?

Definitely!!

Philippa111

It's ok to agree to disagree and no need to get personal. It's interesting to read how people think and feel about things, often totally opposed to my own views. And sometimes I do recoil but live and let live. I can always choose not to read Gransnet if I dont want to.

Well said Philippa111.

I can’t quote your post for some reason, escaped, but would just like to say that recollections clearly vary

You do seem to get types who just seem to enjoy having a safe, anonymous go at other people, on every forum. I’ve encountered some of these on very different forums for a long time now.

Incidentally, one of my very first GN posts, years ago now, was about deficiencies in a pretty pricey holiday let. Someone (I haven’t a clue who) instantly had a go at me - I was supposed to enjoy ‘roughing it’ on holiday - that was what holidays were for!
Er, not for me, not when I was shelling out ££££!

Magenta8

Here goes.....In my opinion, GN hit an all time low with the thread about the Deputy Prime Minister's clothes last July (2024). There were 1,000 posts including one that stated that she "looked like a tart". Admittedly, not all the posts were critical of the DPM but a large number chose to denigrate her and to vilify any posters who defended her.

I don't know if I have contravened GN rules by alluding to a previous post; please feel free to report me if I have.

No that's not fair!
The thread was in Chat.
The two posts about AR's boobs and tarty look were rightly pulled up and, I think one was deleted.
The other 998 comments pretty much drifted around fashion trends, colours, our own clothing, holidays etc, but a few posters started getting uppity about what they saw as irrelevant comments, (as if any chat is irrelevant), on the thread. Then came the accusations of posters being catty, disruptive, mean girls purely because several were enjoying chatting whilst bringing the thread to 1000 entries. I can't remember anyone vilifying those GNs defending AR.

Personally - I simply don't go in for labelling people "left" and "right" - even in my own head. They just are.......

Goodness knows I've probably been (mis)labelled every political hue going over the years and yet my basic views haven't changed much I'd say. So I tend to think people label others politically according to how they personally think - and not in accordance with how that person thinks. Goodness knows the exact same person can hold very different views on very different topics.

I can certainly think of people who have been personally nasty on here - including to me - and I havent reported them (just thought "Be a better person than them"). I'm more of a "Oh it's her again....scroll on by" sorta person basically.

I do think Society has been getting way more "divided - and vocal about it" over the last few years. Though there is one viewpoint (held by a lot of women and I've never noticed a man holding it) that would cause screams of outrage - by women/always by women - if one puts it up on a forum even before the last few years - but it thankfully doesnt come up on one for this agegroup of women (whew!).

Now admits to wondering if there's an equivalent forum for men anywhere and it would be interesting to see how it differs from this (female-oriented) one.

I don't recall anyone saying that Mr Johnson looked like a rent boy.

It's ok to agree to disagree and no need to get personal. It's interesting to read how people think and feel about things, often totally opposed to my own views. And sometimes I do recoil but live and let live. I can always choose not to read Gransnet if I dont want to.

Mollygo

Woodenspoon

On the other hand, Boris has also been criticised for his hair and appearance on here many times.

Yes but he’s a bloke, and Conservative as well, so that’s different!

Of course it is. Two tier.

TheWeirdoAgain1

I absolutely hate heavy metal/rock/punk but I wouldn't tell someone not to like it just because I don't!

There are so many people out there determined to control everyone else's lives because they don't have it in them to control their own!

Ignore the haters! If you want a jacket spud with cheese and beans, go for it!

If you want to support a particular political or religious group, do it!

By responding to the haters you're giving them fire to fire back at you, by totally ignoring them they have no power!

Very well said.

nanna8

If I wanted to I could actually vote in the British elections as I still have citizenship. I am interested in the mess that is British politics just now because I was born and bred there and have relatives there, including a brother in law and sister in law. I am also very interested in American and New Zealand politics because I have relatives there, too. Is that a crime ? I have never, ever,said Australia is perfect , it certainly isn’t . I voted the current mob in but they are not crash hot, lots of things they do I wouldn’t but then I’m not a politician. If people don’t like comments from overseas, feel free to ignore he , I wouldn’t be offended in any way.

Sorry Nanna8 you can't vote in UK Elections, you need to be registered to vote in the constituency in which you live

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8985/

Woodenspoon

On the other hand, Boris has also been criticised for his hair and appearance on here many times.

Yes but he’s a bloke, and Conservative as well, so that’s different!

And FriedGreenToms - up thread a poster said you can read but not post.

Hello - I hope to see you posting sooon. Without any change in your style 😉😉

Magenta8

Here goes.....In my opinion, GN hit an all time low with the thread about the Deputy Prime Minister's clothes last July (2024). There were 1,000 posts including one that stated that she "looked like a tart". Admittedly, not all the posts were critical of the DPM but a large number chose to denigrate her and to vilify any posters who defended her.

I don't know if I have contravened GN rules by alluding to a previous post; please feel free to report me if I have.

What she wears does not affect her ability to do her job. I’m no fan of hers but it’s very poor to criticise somebody for their clothes. As for saying she looks like a tart, how would anybody know, unless they were one, what a tart looks like? Makes you wonder.

On the other hand, Boris has also been criticised for his hair and appearance on here many times.

ViceVersak Doodledog and LauraNorder 👏👏👏

Yes, I agree with both Doodledog and LauraNorderr. If you can't get to our age without being able to withstand a bit of robust debate, then there's something wrong. I'm not talking about personal attacks or insults - there's no place for that - but you can disagree with what a poster is saying without resorting to abuse.

Doodledog. On the advice of a Gran I self reported my post and asked HQ for confirmation of what are the reasons for a suspension or ban. They came back and confirmed it wasnt on the basis of a single trangression or reporting but in a series of infringements.
You could report your own post above and ask for more information re banning and your other questions.

Here goes.....In my opinion, GN hit an all time low with the thread about the Deputy Prime Minister's clothes last July (2024). There were 1,000 posts including one that stated that she "looked like a tart". Admittedly, not all the posts were critical of the DPM but a large number chose to denigrate her and to vilify any posters who defended her.

I don't know if I have contravened GN rules by alluding to a previous post; please feel free to report me if I have.

Furthermore, I do not agree with FGTs political views, wouldn’t vote for Reform, find Trump to be a dangerous man BUT
(Not shouting just emphasising) find FGT to be one of the kindest and most supportive of posters, she has helped so many through tough times with compassion and great sincerity. Now when she needs us most..,
No compassion shown by the person who has reported her, hope they have a conscience and are feeling regret.

I am in full agreement with Doodledog that all posts should stand so that we, mature, experienced, intelligent gransnetters may judge for ourselves.
Anyone who was deliberately nasty or spiteful would be ignored or brought to book by others.
Banning should only occur where foul language is used or where incitement to hatred is obvious.
Where comments are reported and moderators remove them I would like to see a clear explanation given. Eg this post was deemed to be a personal insult because….or this post has used hate speech.
I also feel that criticism of ‘deliberately goady posts’ is a bit daft. IMO they draw attention and stimulate interest, provoke discussion. Isn’t that what it’s all about.
Walk on by if strong discussion doesn’t appeal to you.
I would really like to see an amnesty for all previously banned posters and a doing away with the idea that because we are of a certain age we can’t cope with a bit of argybargy.

I'm another who is used to more 'robust' boards, and on the whole find GN more polite than not. There is, IMO, far more passive aggression than outright aggression on here, so I was quite shocked at some of the posts around the time of the GE as it was very out of character for the GN I know.

Re the right and left thing - I don't think I have seen extremes on either wing on here. There are Labour and Tory voters, (and now those who intend to vote Reform) as well as Greens and Lib Dems, but not much (if any) Fascism or Communism. I suspect that most people see themselves as reasonable centrists, and therefore anyone who leans one way or the other more obviously than they do (or think they do) is a 'loony leftie' or on the 'rabid right'. As a generalisation, I think that there are people on both the left and right who are given to authoritarianism. The difference is that on the left it is usually more about theory and dogma (hence the long explanations and requests for evidence) and on the right it is more of a 'because I/he/she say(s) so' and a belief that the speaker 'has the facts' so there is no need to provide any. Anyway, we still have democracy, which means we have to live with the fact that others disagree with us politically.

I also think that there can be a tendency for people to think that any disagreement with their point of view is a personal attack. Disagreement is not personal, and I sometimes wonder if those claiming it is ever have discussions 'in real life', or if they just expect to have the last word.

Generally, I am in favour of leaving nasty posts for others to see. They form a picture of a poster and others can see for themselves what they are like. If posts are deleted nobody knows if it is because of an over-zealous reporter or because the post really was a personal attack or whatever. I do feel that whilst there are posters I miss, HQ can't allow some to stay because they are popular and ban others for lack of a vocal following. There are others I miss who have left of their own volition because of what seems to me obvious hounding by people who are never pulled up for their behaviour (or don't appear to - it's impossible to tell).

I think a lot of the problem is that the 'rules' are so vague. 'The spirit of GN' is meaningless, and there is no obvious protocol for what happens if someone is suspended or banned. I realise that if a first offence is particularly awful the mods have to act, but I'm talking about people who routinely upset others without crossing into illegality. HQ have posted that there are talks behind the scenes and various stages before someone is banned, but they don't explain what they are or how they are implemented. It would also be interesting to know whether posters can be banned for vexatious reporting, although anonymity would make that tricky, I suppose. We know that lurkers also report people they don't like. Does HQ check the posting history of a reporter before adjudicating? It seems daft to act on the sayso of someone who contributes nothing but wants to get a regular poster banned.

They are boring Anniebach . I haven’t come across any hatefests, either.Just in the eyes of the beholder, perhaps ?

Disagree is acceptable but accused of hatefest is not