Anti-Religious Trolling On Mumsnet

Capsium, the suggestion of such lockdowns and control of views is quite unpalatable to me. Perhaps it it more comfortable for religious adherents to feel controlled in this way- it's what they are comfortable with after all- but for many of us it would feel like being nannied. I don't need a dictator, benevolent or otherwise.
Mumsnet rules work fine as they are.

It still isn't workable. What one person sees as a persistent purposeful diversion, many other people may see as an interesting area for debate and they will respond to it. Should they be warned as well? Should all their posts be deleted? Frankly people would get incredibly frustrated, others would see it as unnecessarily heavy-handed censorship by MNHQ, and threads would just die.

Subjectivity is present in all forms of moderation but there is still a place for it. The warning would should signify there are a significant number of posters who would like to move a derailing conversation off thread - to another if posters want to carry it on. No censorship, just a requirement to move derailing conversations to another thread.

People could report what they see as persistent, purposeful diversions by a poster. MN could issue a warning to that poster to start a new thread or stay on topic and subsequently delete posts if they don't

It still isn't workable. What one person sees as a persistent purposeful diversion, many other people may see as an interesting area for debate and they will respond to it. Should they be warned as well? Should all their posts be deleted? Frankly people would get incredibly frustrated, others would see it as unnecessarily heavy-handed censorship by MNHQ, and threads would just die.

pearly you can look at it this way, some degree of moderation, in the way I have explained above, will allow for more subjects to be discussed, more conversation.

It will protect people's freedoms not impinge them because at the moment all a poster has to do is persistently bombard the thread with distracting comments and questions in order to derail it and shut down conversation.

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

Should we respect your opinion that respect is for people better than you? Or should we respect HC's opinion that that is nonsense. Would you like to defend thst point of view on thread after thread, ad infinitum?

I would like someone to address the point about the private and public aspects of faith. People keep bringing up privilege and faith schools etc. Valid discussion to be had. Nobody afaics wants to shut down debate. But people exploring aspects of their own personal faith should be allowed to do that. Presently they cannot, as some people see mention of religion and go on about sky fairy, superstition, delusion. That's deliberate and I would think very enjoyable for them.
That's the elephant in the room.

MNHQ, you seem perfectly able to decide where the limits are regarding debate around David Cameron, and you enforce these limits diligently and on the basis of your moral principles. You have no problem putting freedom of speech to bed for these purposes even though Cameron's disability cuts are a disgrace and suggesting he avoids reasoned debate by referring inappropriately to his person experience of disability is a reasonable point.

So imagine God is someone you might like to invite for a live web chat. You will then suddenly find lots of moral reasons to ensure that debate about him is 'reasonable' and 'fair'.

Respect has a couple of meanings. One is about admiration, I respect the skill which my cat has is hunting birds although I wish she didn't do it. Another is about regard for feelings, wishes and views. I respect my conservative Christian friend's views on a number of issues but as a progressive/liberal/academic Christian I reserve the right to disagree with them. It is this second meaning that we are talking about.

To begin to understand another viewpoint it seems essential to listen to the other, really listen. What is frustrating about M N is the insistence by a minority of posters that all Christians are fundamentalists, that the Bible must be read literally and that those of us with an adult and mature faith still have the childlike or teenager stage of faith that the atheists or secular humanists have rejected.

Pointing out derailments and ignoring off topic interventions by posters taking their hobby horses out for a canter is one way to keep the religion threads a place where people can explore, share and discuss issues of faith and spirituality. MNHQ have taken a decision about light touch moderation which may be commercial or there may be another reason. It doesn't work on religious discussion boards where one group end up dominating. I've moderated a number of Christian boards and have experience of this. So those of us who want to try and make it work can have a go.

The thing is, those who are deliberately trying to derail the conversation, so it's shut down, only succeed if people engage with them. Once it's obvious what they're doing - and it usually doesn't take long to realise it - then just ignore them. Then you've won, rather than them.

If they're at it constantly, then it's time to report and get MNHQ to deal with them.

But trying to insist that posters on MN (or on any other public forum) stay on topic is nonsense - and unworkable. How would you define 'on topic', given that different posters will have (inevitably) different perspectives on the OP? Who gets to control the topic?

"Be nice."

Bleaach. Like one of those signs you see in shops saying " It's nice to be nice".

I don't really want to live in a world where everyone is "nice". Afraid to challenge assumptions, views and structures. Afraid to speak up to defend the oppressed, afraid to challenge those who wield power.

Sometimes being nice is not useful or helpful. Sometimes being nice allows those in power to carry on abusing, to ride roughshod.

Bertrand regardless of what you think about Christian privilege within institutions in this country, this thread is about MN. Specifically the derailment of a large number of threads where the OP has raised an issue of faith and worship for discussion. The result of the derailment is that conversation over these type of issues is shut down. So, should MN take steps to moderate?

Derailment has observed to be an issue on other boards, for example the feminist board too. Yes, occasional innocent diversions can be fruitful and provide for an interesting conversation but persistent, purposeful diversions do undoubtedly shut down conversation.

Moderation needn't be harsh. People could report what they see as persistent, purposeful diversions by a poster. MN could issue a warning to that poster to start a new thread or stay on topic and subsequently delete posts if they don't. So what if several posters decamp from one thread to another? This would enable more conversation not less.

I think, as far as I can gather, you link 'respect' with 'deference'. I don't expect there to be deference for Christian posters on MN. However, I think it is wrong not to be able have a conversation about specific aspects of faith and worship, without posters piling in to derail the thread, by filling it up with questions and comments which demand posters defend their faith. With the moderation issue, it could happen across the boards. So there would be equality there.

Personally I see 'respect' more as behaving kindly and politely, I attempt to respect all people just because I prefer it to behaving unkindly or agressively or sneeringly - not that I am never guilty of being less than respectful.

It seems to me that all that is required for a discussion forum is the rule that already exists, namely that people refrain from personal attacks; if we start introducing rules that we have to show respect for other people's views at all times, it becomes unworkable. For example, I really cannot feel respect for the view that Donald Trump is the greatest living human being, but I can be reasonably polite about it if someone expresses that view. If MN is going to tell me that I can't robustly point out all the evidence that he's an arsehole because I have to respect the other person's views, I suspect it could be the beginning of the end as it would become such a boring place. And I can't see why views on religion should be treated any differently.

Well, no, it's not nonsense because the full sentence was "I suppose for me "respect" is something you show to someone who is better than you"..............

'Respect is something you show to someone that is better than you'

I usually enjoy your posts Bertrand (dont agree with many of them but that's another matter) but the comment is above is nonsense.

I don't discuss religion in rl, unless observing a special day and it's only with my family. When I did discuss religion it was at a RC School.

So treating other people with respect is out of the question.

I do think the nub of the issue is that people don't know what respect is.

Maybe the trouble is that in RL people are usually too polite (and socially conditioned) to say anything out loud about the religious beliefs of people they engage with and that has created a sense of entitlement and shock when they encounter something different on an anonymous forum.

I like it when an alternative view is put forward as Bert has too. Religious privilege.

This whole respect question is unclear.
There are rules on Mumsnet about No personal attacks or Deliberately inflammatory behaviour that apply to all threads.

Are people with a religious beliefs suggesting that these deserve something different beyond what happens elsewhere on this forum?

Being polite and friendly is a nice way for people to behave, but it doesn't always happen, and is not something that can or should be controlled.

People are disrespectful of my views and choices, " a wishy washy liberal left-winger". People say derogatory things about politicians I believe in and respect. I don't for one moment believe that I have the right to complain on Site Stuff that my beliefs are being disrespected.

I think the point Bertrand makes about expectations created by religious privilege is very perceptive..

I've asked before about what "respect" means. For me it's all a bit "Take your cap off, boy" and cenotaphs and standing for the Nstional Anthem. Automaitic civilized public behaviour, if you like. I donMt actually know how I would show respect for another person,s faith. If I went into their place of worship, I would behave appropriately- and I have always stopped my children from blaspheming because it might upset someone who overheard them. But that's not respect- it's basic good manners. I suppose for me "respect" is something you show to someone who is better than you. Some Christians are better than me. But not because they are Christians.

I don't really know what "show respect" means.

I think people should do their very best to be polite and kind to each other. But I also think we should always be prepared to defend our opinions, think about them and be prepared to change them. And I am pretty sure that I don't regard anything as sacrosanct. Anything should be up for debate.

Should they be shown respect, though, Bertrand?