Anti-Religious Trolling On Mumsnet

Another thing I don't understand is why people think the " derailing" is deliberate- and what the derailers get out of it.

I thought the points raised by Silver were interesting and pertinent, given the rest of the conversations on this thread.

Seems a personal speculation, Biwi.

... which proves my point entirely. One poster thinks someone else's post offers an interesting perspective, whereas another thinks it's a derailment. There's never going to be a way to define it absolutely.

I come back to the fact that I just can't see capsium's suggested rule ever being workable. If people want a discussion to diverge, that is what will happen, and no amount of requests that they start a new thread will make any difference; indeed, requests to do so would run the risk of derailing the discussion even further. If MN start deleting posts that allegedly satisfy this criterion, it is highly likely to cause resentment, questioning of their judgment, and again yet more derailing. If posters don't want the discussion to diverge, they won't respond to posts that tend that way.

^to be against MN guidelines, that should say.

But that is manifestly not the case. I regularly see threads where there are, in effect, two discussions going on - one relating to the original post, another exploring a related issue. Neither is shutting down the other.

This may be true, but we have a specific complaint noted in the OP and by several posters on here, that this is what they experience happening especially on threads concerning faith topics.

As I said before, moderation does not have to be harsh. If people are happy with 2 conversations running side by side on a thread, they won't report this as derailment. MN will make the decision as to what to do, if there are complaints.

However if persistent, purposeful derailments are made against MN guidelines, with appropriate consequences, then it send a clear message that such persistent, purposeful derailments are unacceptable.

People who don't want to derail, I would have thought, would be happy to decamp to another thread, perhaps with a link to signal where they have departed to.

And her point about an apparent lack of desire for different and/or deeper thinking relates directly, does it not, to wishing to control 'derailment'?

I welcome deeper thinking. However it pays, to have some focus to discussion otherwise issues can never be fully considered, without distraction. If interesting issues were brought up, in tangents to a thread, do they not deserve a thread of their own to explore them fully? Rather than delegating the original issue raised for discussion, so that discussion disappears. People have more choice then, not less, over the discussion(s) they want to participate in.

Respond to the derailing comments and they serve their purpose, the thread is derailed and the discussion the OP raised is shut down.

But that is manifestly not the case. I regularly see threads where there are, in effect, two discussions going on - one relating to the original post, another exploring a related issue. Neither is shutting down the other.

And there we have it a derogatory speculation singling out Christians. Should this be how every thread that so much as mentions religious faith end up?

In fact, there we have a very precise illustration of the over-sensitivity that people are talking about. Of course the post capsium was responding to referred to what "some of the Christian posters" on here were saying because it was a simple statement of fact; non-Christian posters are not the ones saying that discussion has to be narrowed down and kept on one single track. If we have to ignore reality in order to "show respect" it becomes ridiculous, and it's not something we expect in relation to discussion on any other theme.

capsium - you seem very keen on this very narrow, controlling way of people posting on MN. Why? I thought the points raised by Silver were interesting and pertinent, given the rest of the conversations on this thread.

Seems a personal speculation, Biwi. As I have said in my previous posts, I see the prospect of moderation as less controlling than the purposeful, persistent derailment of threads. The distraction could be ignored but this just provides a platform to say whatever is liked, without challenge. Respond to the derailing comments and they serve their purpose, the thread is derailed and the discussion the OP raised is shut down.

After 744 posts, I think a little deeper exploration about why there are different views about Christian threads needing special official moderation.

Ah, you didn't make it explicit that is what you were doing, Silver.

I would add an additional question though, in this exploration. Why is it deemed acceptable to divert any conversation, which discusses aspects of Christian Faith and worship, to a discussion where believers are required to defend their faith, thus shutting down the original discussion?

Regarding the moderation being 'special'. It does not have to be. There can be equality in this moderation across the boards. Up thread posts mentioned there is also a problem with persistent and purposeful derailments on other boards.

There does seem to be a theme coming through from some of the Christian posters on here that deeper thinking, differing opinions and discussion is not to be encouraged.

I suspect that this may be a uniquely Christian view.

And there we have it a derogatory speculation singling out Christians. Should this be how every thread that so much as mentions religious faith end up?

capsium - you seem very keen on this very narrow, controlling way of people posting on MN. Why? I thought the points raised by Silver were interesting and pertinent, given the rest of the conversations on this thread.

And her point about an apparent lack of desire for different and/or deeper thinking relates directly, does it not, to wishing to control 'derailment'?

pearl sorry, no problem I can moderate my responses.

Without a report facility for derailments the only option is to point them out, politely and respectfully, thus I partially engaged with the point Silver raised, regarding her view of 'Christian privilege' and suggested a new thread could be started in this subject. With a report facility, ignoring then reporting persistent, purposeful derailments, would be enough.

"Is relevant" is missing at the end of my first para above.

capsium I do hope you're not being serious.

After 744 posts, I think a little deeper exploration about why there are different views about Christian threads needing special official moderation.

There does seem to be a theme coming through from some of the Christian posters on here that deeper thinking, differing opinions and discussion is not to be encouraged.

I suspect that this may be a uniquely Christian view.

capsium, that's a yellow card- you are not staying on topic.

Silver

Interesting, I come from a background where if someone goes to church, it is mentioned in hushed tones, as if there is something odd about it, sometimes an excuse is even made on their behalf, "Well, it is like a hobby, they get to see people, they're lonely" etc. ...so this conditioning does not seem to have reached all sectors of society.

Perhaps you could start a new thread about this though, as it doesn't really comment on whether moderating derailments is a good idea...

I've been thinking about this idea of Christian privilege and respect in RL.

Within myself and my social social circles I see many instances of this occurring it's not unlike gender stereotyping in that it's so intertwined with our social conditioning we rarely take a step back to consider how strange and inconsistent it is.

If a friend mentions she has spent the morning at church with their children people without any faith will smile pleasantly and maybe comment about how lucky they are about being part of the community. Whilst someone like myself taking DS delivering my political party's leaflets can expect a few light-heated digs about indoctrination of DS.

I suspect Muslims and Jews don't experience the same level of conditioned respect. Again in my experience I've seen friends closely questioned about their pilgrimage to Mecca, and discussing the point and purpose of the kosher dietary rules. The tone and the content of the questioning demonstrated very little respect for their beliefs.

It often feels a bit like breaking a taboo to say anything awry, critical or even humorous about the Christian faith. For many of us, I suspect this comes from attending CofE schools as children.

I think having an attenuated moral compass is the problem.

pearl derogatory speculations about the nature of religious posters aside, we can prevent derailment ourselves, without moderation by 'calling out' every derailment - I am considering this myself.

However the reason I think moderation is a good idea, is that it might change the culture of these boards a little. It would signify that purposeful, persistent derailment really is not an acceptable way to behave.

Purposeful derailment , as I understand it, is more about seeking to control than the moderation I have outlined, as it is making certain conversations extremely difficult and deterring posters from posting. Moderation would still allow the conversations which were off topic to carry on but on another thread.

"But then accuse another poster of passive aggression?"

But I am not the one who has the more finely attenuated moral compass. What with not having god and all.

"Do you really want some conversations, which are perfectly within talk guidelines, to not be possible on MN?"

Nice passive aggressive twist there.