How to have an open discussion when there are people determined to shut it down?

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I didn't think the thread was like that, I think it stayed pretty much on topic.

What got my hackles up was thinking this thread was about me, as someone commented something that sounded very much like it was aimed at me, but it's not about me so it's all good.

Ah this makes sense, so literal trolling. I think the only way to deal is to ignore as any reaction, positive, negative, good faith, bad faith is what they get off on.

It is infuriating because they often will write something designed to get you to snap back and draw you into conversation. Reddit is absolutely rife with people like that, I can't believe the amount of time and dedication they are willing to spend just being completely disingenuous and incendiary.

Ah, I think I know which one you mean. There's a recent thread which started off very interestingly but I've now stopped watching/taking part in because it has become so derailed.

I have a suspicion that the type of poster the OP is referring to was very prolific on a previous, deleted thread who posted post after post about collecting posts as 'evidence/receipts' of 'transphobia' while referring to an unspecified 'we'. It wasn't a discussion or a case of dissenting opinions, it was clearly a trawl for screenshots. It definitely wasn't you @Dreamwhisper - if it's the poster I'm thinking of.

There's a difference between a natural progression of a discussion and a derailer. It usually becomes clear after a few posts.
A discussion takes points and replies, a derailer never gives anything useful to the debate.
I report posters who seem to be posting in bad faith and let MN decide.

I enjoy reading people who are arguing in good faith and genuinely trying to persuade me to reconsider my position. That is partly the point of spending time here. To read intelligent posts which are challenging to my current perspectives. Mumsnet is great for that because it really isn’t an echo chamber. I visit Ovarit and Spinster too, both of which are more in the vein of echo chambers, they serve different purposes than Mumsnet.

Those who come to FWR to play the game of seeing if they can incite anger or distress in other posters, those who get a kick out of eliciting a reaction from unknown others on the internet, the attention seekers who love to derail and then dominate the thread, the ones who want to prevent the discussion of important topics by derailing those threads. Those are all best treated by reference to Bunbury.

It used to be when the current Bunbury thread appeared at the top of the list of threads we’d know a poster like that had appeared on a significant thread.

Another difference between people who are there to derail and those with genuine opposing viewpoints - the derailers will often absolutely refuse to concede any shared ground or agreement with anything "the GCs" believe. Or if they do, they have to caveat it, usually with some kind of defensive accusation. Eg "do you agree that same-sex attraction is valid?" might get completely ignored, or responded to with "yes I think same-sex attraction is valid but people can still be sexual racists by excluding one sex from their dating pool".
People who are engaging generally try to find common ground and unpick where they disagree, or at least try to set out their argument logically.

It's like "how do we pretend this place isn't an echo chamber while ensuring it actually is"

Women respond to TRA posts: echo chamber.

Women ignore TRA posts: also echo chamber.

🤔

Yeah, a point someone disagrees with is totally different than a derail. Occasionally you will see some disagreement on something like that, but usually it's pretty clear.

The most common by far is when you have a discussion about something fairly meaty or nuanced, say like AGP, or children's education - though often it is about something that looks particularly bad for TRAs, like medical malpractice - and you will get someone come in and say something about just wanting to use toilets in peace, or something similar, and will get into the weeds of a totally different discussion. Typically the poster is making a lot of claims and short statements that fill up the thread and make it difficult to read.

Tangents are a different story, and I do think that if it begins to swamp the main discussion, if that is still on-going, it can be legitimate to ask people to start a new thread on the topic so the original discussion can carry on. It's not always necessary though.

Ah alright fair enough 😊

I'll give another example. It's what "trolling" originally meant in the early days of the internet - dropping a "contribution" so stupidly wrong that everyone just posts in reply to correct or argue with that particular, unrelated, point , and the original topic gets lost in the bunfight, while the troll just sits back and watches the outrage unfold, occasionally popping in to stir with another deliberately disingenuous post.

So, if the OP was "in my specific circumstances, is my DP being unreasonable to go to the gym 5x per week', the derailer might say "studies show that men his age actually need the endorphins from exercise to stave off cancer, but as usual all the "feminists" on here actively want men to get ill so they can control their pension".

Thread derailed as people ask for the studies (if the poster was genuine, they'd cite them). This thread is basically a plea to others to avoid the trap. The phrase "don't feed the trolls" was coined for this reason - people despair of good discussion being abandoned.

Why are you reluctant to give examples? Is it “talk guidelines” or are you just not sure if you are right in your summation of their input?

There are a handful of repeat visitors to FWR who take great joy in popping up in threads to bring up the same question that has been done to death a billion times already

I don’t think you’re in that group Dream

If a post leads away from the topic under discussion, replying to it would derail the debate still further. Everyone is welcome go start a thread on the topic they want to discuss. Do have a go!

But why try to control their input. By all means read it thinking “yawn” or “arse” or whatever but you don’t need to do anything about it. It’s just like the item you don’t like on a plate of food.

Obviously discussions go on tangents.
Again, it's the ones that can't even clarify what they are saying to avoid misunderstanding, and/or change the subject to "what people who post on FWR are like". Basically just sticking fingers in ears and name-calling.

I've been on FWR a long time and this is a very specific type of poster, who always plays out the same way. It's different from robust debate - actually putting a point across and trying to find common ground as well as the specific points you disagree on (e.g. 'i think lowering the risk of covid by x% is worth wearing a mask on the train' vs 'i find masks so uncomfortable I'm willing to live with the increased risk of infection' as a made-up example. Whereas derailing is 'i think it's a net benefit to wear a mask on the train' vs 'you're a blind sheep who believes everything you're told and I bet you loved lockdown rules and killing pensioners, here's a YouTube I saw about it')

One persons “derail” is another’s pertinent point, or interesting addition. In all conversations there are people you don’t agree with, or who take things in a direction that doesn’t interest you. Either post what you want to talk about and if others do too, they will answer or accept the thread isn’t the discussion you were look for and leave it to those that are enjoying the interaction. Anything else seems tediously controlling.

Surely this thread is about derailing tactics, not dissenting arguments? There's a big difference between the two and I don't think posters who haven't got the courtesy to stay on topic are entitled to the courtesy of a reply.

I've think I've read the thread you're referring to Dreamwhisper although I didn't post on it. I thought it was a full blooded but respectful discussion and I'm surprised to see you characterise it in that way.

I haven't seen any particular thread that this is ostensibly about, but I think it's a good standalone discussion topic, so would be good if it could be kept like that rather than be dragged into a TAAT in order to get it deleted (another longstanding tactic of dedicated derailers).

Some people may incorrectly say that derailing is the same thing as presenting an opposing argument for discussion.

Obviously, most adults are capable of discerning the difference.

You can tell who the derailers are - one giveaway is when they're asked to clarify a point they have tried to make and they can't answer or re-word the question to something else.

It's honestly ridiculous and disheartening isn't it. This thread is aimed at me I have little doubt about that.

It's like "how do we pretend this place isn't an echo chamber while ensuring it actually is".

Just because you don't agree, doesn't make something derailing.

Yeah, I agree, ignore the derail comments.

There are discussions that are back and forth, IMO, that are not derails, they are just the way the discussion goes.

But when you see certain types of comments, often that really are not what the thread is about, it's often best to ignore them, or maybe direct them to a different thread - it only takes one person to do that.

Often what I notice is people will turn up and talk about something like toilet access etc which is not what the discussion is about. It's usually clear in a few posts that it is a derail.

Everyone else can just keep on topic and ignore the comment.