Anti-Religious Trolling On Mumsnet

You know what? I think the issue is that Christians are so used to having a privileged position in British society that any attempt tosuggest they are no more or less important and deserve no more or less special treatment than anyone else makes them feel as if they are being disadvantaged. If feminists, or Labour supporters or even atheists tried to suggest that there should be special rules to stop anyone challenging them or occasionally saying rude things about them, there would quite rightly be an outcry. But it seems quite normal for Christians to expect it, and for them to be shocked and outraged when they are expected to deal with the rough and tumble of general discourse.

I do my level best never to be rude to anyone, but I am not going to shut up when people's beliefs impact negatively on me or on other people. What consenting adults do in private is up to them. But when we're dealing with anything from a 4 year old being expected to say grace in a tax payer funded state school, through to compulsory RE GCSE, via exorcism, unelected Bishops having an automatic say in legislation about end of life care and stem cell research to male infant circumcision, women's reproductive health and condom use,to name but a few then I am going to speak out and speak out loudly. Because I do not think any special privileges should be accorded to people of faith. They should not have more and different rights to other people.

The Dawkins approach is a personal agenda.

There is a difference between a stimulating discussion and rude, belittling of beliefs. I had a series of emails with MN Towers on this subject a year or two back after some very unpleasant derogatory posts on a thread discussing Christian beliefs. I have a very simple faith which I am still learning about and developing so enjoy reading the threads and hate seeing the rudeness

To my way of thinking the difference is often "I don't understand your thinking because xxx..." as opposed to "How can you believe something so inane, any sane person knows..." Someone used a gardening analogy upthread So someone starts a thread in the gardening section asking what flowers would grow best in a shady garden. Another poster comes along as says she doesn't grow flowers as she prefers to grow veg That is fine but the posts I object to are those that say I prefer to grow veg and only an idiot would want to grow flowers and even believe that could be an option

I've been reading this thread with much interest all afternoon.

Generally I avoid the P&R threads because I'm not religious and I don't feel that I have anything of any significance to post that would aid the discussion. Nor am I especially interested in religious threads, about any kind of religion. I do, though, believe that it's absolutely everyone's right to believe, and therefore to have a space on MN dedicated to religious threads.

However, as this thread is in site stuff, and as I'd also seen the 3pm thread too, it piqued my interest.

I think the invasion of a thread by trolls is always something that should be dealt with swiftly by MNHQ. It happens a lot on the Feminist board, and it's immensely irritating (sometimes pretty upsetting), and if not dealt with quickly really spoils the thread.

But derailment is, I think, very different.

Derailment happens for lots of different reasons, and it's not always a deliberate thing. Sometimes people just go off on a tangent, sometimes a post sparks another thought, which posters wish to express.

Sometimes posters just take a thread in a different direction from that which the OP intended. But it doesn't mean that the discussion is any less valid or interesting.

It is also, of course, sometimes a deliberate course of action, because a poster or posters disagree with the OP or have some kind of personal agenda. If this is the case, then this should be reported to MNHQ - and, of course, other posters can choose to ignore the derailment.

But in general, derailment is a frequent phenomenon on any thread on any forum. I don't really get why it's such an issue. As an OP of a thread, you don't get to control the way the discussion pans out. It's impossible for MNHQ to police posters on the basis of derailment, because defining what derailment is will be completely different on each thread. Ultimately, the only person who can say it's derailment is the OP of the thread - and you don't get to have that kind of control on MN, or on any forum.

If someone is posting in a way you dislike, then it's up to you to challenge that poster, and to argue your point. As long as it's all done without having to resort to personal attacks, then what's the issue? After all, you might end up being presented with information or perspectives that you hadn't thought of before, so you would be learning something. It could, therefore, be argued that derailment can also be a constructive phenomenon.

Augusta if I were involved in that diversion, I would just apologise and move the discussion to a new thread. The discussion could continue. There potentially would be more discussion, not less, as is now, with derailment shutting down discussion.

Oh well good luck with that one, let us know what the moderators think, about your plans.

I think it's plainly totally unworkable, whether it's confined to religious threads or not. We've already had an example in that recent exchange about how people would really struggle to define what is and is not derailing with a difference of opinion about it, and that's a discussion that would happen time and time again if that rule were brought in.

It would also, to be honest, make MN a very boring place if, every time a stimulating aspect of the discussion starts to be debated, someone pops up and says "No, sorry, that's derailing, if you want to discuss it you'll have to start a new thread".

Only if people reported and only if she persistently makes attempts to divert the conversation, away from the OP, pearl.

Backing up a bit but I don't see this issue as being about respecting beliefs, but respecting the fact that people want to discuss things that matter to them. Even if you think it's bonkers.

This whole scheme sounds nuts.

So someone starts a thread in the gardening section asking what flowers would grow best in a shady garden. Another poster comes along as says she doesn't grow flowers as she prefers to grow veg.
So that second poster should be dealt with by the moderators?

Seriously?

Having a guideline, with warnings and possible deletion for going against it would mean those who purposely and persistently try to derail might be put off. The occasional innocent off point comment would not come under the derailment heading.

I never said anything about 'Authorized Intervener' (s). The guidelines I have talked about would not even have to be that strict. But filling up threads with off topic questions and comments is derailing and distracting.

Excuse my potential ignorance but whether a post is derailing or not is subjective surely

And who on earth would decide?

Sorry but I think it's an unworkable idea. Sure, report and delete for blatant breakage of the talk guidelines, decided by MNHQ but anything else is too complicated Imo.

I forsee posts along the lines of "Umm sorry, previous poster, even though your comment isn't against talk guidelines, I do feel it's not contributing to how the thread is going at this present moment, please desist or keep up"

Which sounds all controlling and wrong on a free speech (guidelines aside) forum.

But only one post, capsium? By a Mumsnet Authorized Intervener? Any other posts to be deleted as derailing.

Nope, I suspect not everyone agrees with my opinion on myself too. If anyone felt the need to tell me about it without resorting to insults and slurs, great. Not sure why that is so hard to grasp?"

Ms Pot, allow me to introduce Ms Kettle.........

A short post as to how Creationism is not necessarily implicit within all forms Christianity, in the developing faith thread, and how neurological occurrences can cause auditory or visual hallucinations, in the ghosts thread, would not be off point IMO. Both points relate to what the OP wanted to raise in discussion.

"And presumably under the suggested new rules, any challenge would be deleted as derailing?

Only if they didn't relate to the topic the OP had raised to be discussed. "

OK. Let's think about the threads Lottie linked to- the "how can I help my religious daughter one". Lottie's line was that only people with ideas about how to support this 6 year old develop her faith should post. Despite the fact that the OP was worried about the child being uncomfortable about dinosaurs because they didn't fit in with her faith. So under the new rules, all the posters who talked about broadening her views, and counteracting the Creationism she was getting from somewhere who if have been deleted. On the other, all the people who had suggestions about why the OP's dd was being scared which didn't involve her seeing ghosts would be deleted. Is that what you want to happen?

And presumably under the suggested new rules, any challenge would be deleted as derailing?

Only if they didn't relate to the topic the OP had raised to be discussed.

If the challenges did not relate, they still could be posted, but in a new thread.

Bertrand tbh I often would say, if I thought your comments were potentially derailing / too off point to discuss, at the time.

I often didn't in the past(with various posters) and defended my faith, to varying success - as sometimes this would have contributed to an effective derailment. Sometimes though the resulting conversation is actually helpful to people and they have said. Clear cut derailment is not always easily apparent at the time, even though, looking back it might be clear that some posters divert the topic of conversation in order to derail. Forwarned is forarmed though, thegreenheart's list may prove useful...

And, once again at a risk of the disingenuous accusation, I really don't understand this idea that people are deliberately shutting down threads to stop Christians posting. Why would anyone do that?

"hadn't been on P&R section of MN before the 3pm and this thread and Lottie's links and I was frankly concerned to see a few potentially dangerous beliefs being peddled without much challenge."

And presumably under the suggested new rules, any challenge would be deleted as derailing?

crusading is an interesting phrase in the context, but I agree fits the behaviour better. Mumsnet isn't treating the religion boards any different to any other. The only way that the type of issue you are discussing has been managed elsewhere on the boards is to take the topic off active conversations.

I would suspect that apart from a few individuals who actively like crusading on your boards (and there will be a small number of people doing similar things on other boards too) most people arrive in religious conversations simply because they are on the last 15 mins/active conversations lists. Certainly that's how I ended up on the 3pm conversation, I didn't think it had anything to do with religion at first. Like a few others have said I assumed it was some sort of commemorative moment that I'd not heard about, and was unenlightened even after opening it (it was relatively early on). But then as an atheist who is interested in philosophy too I don't see that section of the site as being 'not for me'. For better or worse religion impacts upon a much wider group of people than those that actively follow faiths, an as such it is something that lots of people have opinions about and not all those opinions will be favourable.

I wonder whether the problem is partly because the P&R area encompasses such a broad area of conflicting beliefs and non-beliefs.

Does it not perhaps draw in a group of people with very disparate views as well as those of us who are very concerned about the snake-oil nature of certain unusual beliefs that can do downright harm to the vulnerable?

I hadn't been on P&R section of MN before the 3pm and this thread and Lottie's links and I was frankly concerned to see a few potentially dangerous beliefs being peddled without much challenge.