Thread derailment

https://fiveable.me/key-terms/intro-anthropology/epistemology

That's why I am telling you to look up epistemology. It explores how people know things and what knowing is. You come to know things through a mix of personal experience and academia, like the majority of people from the dominant cultures in the West. That's not how everyone builds their knowledge bank, though.

Understanding how people come to know is very important when wanting to understand humans..

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3691023-Bunburys-guide-to-community-disruptors-part-4

Posted upthread

No it doesnt suggest that. It suggests that they believe that, probably due to their personal experiences, and that their view isnt based on research or anything else. Just their feeling. That is a way of knowing

I completely disagree that someone's feeling that, for example, most people on benefits have never worked is a "way of knowing". The stats suggest it's extremely unlikely to be true, and what I'm interested in is truthful things.

Generally I will try and call out classism, ableism, racism and misogyny when I see it underpinning people's statements - this is the sort of thing I meant by people not actually being interested in exchange of views because they might have to analyse their own a bit too carefully and just reiterating what they reckon.

But I'm happy to disagree with you and leave it there! Obviously there are tons of areas where fact isn't important.

And yes, it probably is a waste of time to do this 😁

Also, it's the aggressive way people respond on these hot topics.

Let's say I say (please remember these are JUST examples):

Me - I'm a midwife who uses trans inclusive language in my work

Poster1: so you don't give a shit about women?

Poster2: you shouldn't be a midwife

Poster3: so you let men take over all womens spaces?

Poster4: dont listen to Me, no midwife would ever do that

Poster5: Me is a troll. Dont engage

Poster6: asks a genuine question

Poster7: snark behind genuine question

Poster8: what do you think of a man who dressed like a woman in 2002 and broke 17 male sex offenders out of prison? Are you ok with that?

Poster9: Me is okay with that and killing puppies.

That thread from 2019 is quite good.

Which thread do you mean @potpourree ?

being deliberately obtuse or missing the point of an individuals posts to create an argument about a tangential element. It just seems rather insidious and designed to prevent proper conversation.

Yes, I agree. It's all over mumsnet. Deliberately trying to shutdown the actual topic because of their perceived agenda.

If in doubt I always just scroll past. For an actual derailer, direct engagement is the goal.

Of course we will all interpret intentions differently. That thread from 2019 is quite good.

No it doesnt suggest that. It suggests that they believe that, probably due to their personal experiences, and that their view isnt based on research or anything else. Just their feeling. That is a way of knowing. Read a bit into epistemology. It explores how people know things and what knowing actually is.

The other thing is that especially in this environment, it can be unwise to get into certain discussions because the whole conversation will be derailed by people attacking your comment. For example, if I listed some of ways people view womanhood, the assumption that I think that and then the attempts to argue with me about what they believe that I believe would take over the thread.

I saw this the other day when someone gave a perfect answer as to why midwives like me may respect the gender identity of a pregnant person we care for. It quickly turned to wanting to question the poster's views on the subject which are totally irrelevant to why a midwife provides care in that way. It's all an attempt to say "see they believe TWAW so that is why they are saying something that seems compassionate to trans individuals".

And then it gets onto the tiresome thing of wanting to exclude people who think differently either by personal attacks on their character or doubting their authenticity.

It actually reminds me of midwifery debates with hard-core naturalist midwives who don't believe that educated informed women would think differently or make different choices to them. Their differences must always about their entitlement or oppression, never their agency or autonomy. If a midwife disagrees in any way in these circles, she is excluded as a doctors handmaiden or a medwife.

Different time zones too

I’ve reported it when it’s happened on threads I’ve started. I also think the timing is interesting… the particularly bad examples I have noticed seem to start late at night. Bit of a drunken rant at women, perhaps?

A lot of the posting style seems very Reddit to me I agree.

Where do you (general you) draw the line though? There are a couple of posts on this very thread that I would challenge because they're just so....laughable.

But maybe it's better to let them just hang there.

That's good to hear. I've done this but unfortunately had the opposite result. At the time I reported the posting pattern it felt like this board was being spammed! I honestly don't know how they couldn't see it. Perhaps now they've tightened things up a bit if they realise it's driving people away.

a few years ago a group of TRA spoke about their intention to infiltrate and destroy gender critical communities. It was around the time of a substantial GC win: might have been Maya’s win, can’t remember exact details. They all piled on, desperately trying to salvage the remnants of their ideology. This feels quite similar: redditers piling on here, desperately trying to claw back some power or influence from what is a disintegrating philosophy. It’s a bit like someone putting their thumb in a gaping hole in a ship’s hull. It won’t work.

Do you ever consider that actually you are derailing by insisting that poster answer?

That's a possibility - sure. And obviously big threads often have mini-discussions branching off by their nature. But I like to assume good faith - if I don't understand what someone is saying I'll ask for clarification, fully open to the fact this could be my neurodivergent brain not 'getting' something. But if they're not interested in communicating - that's fine, it just suggests I'm not going to understand them or why they believe what they do.

It very much seems like you're saying that unless someone answers in the way that you want, they are disruptive.

I'm not sure what I've said that suggests the "way" in which they provide an answer is disruptive.

I'm saying that if someone comes and says 'well women are just here to extract money from men', or 'women display certain behaviours, we all know it, and we all use that knowledge when determining who's male and female' or - one example from recently - 'I guarantee that most people on UC have never worked' and we ask for what they're basing that on - they're either interested in discussing their reasoning or they're not.

If they just keep repeating circular statements like 'I know it because women are gold-diggers' or 'I know it because we all know what women are like' or 'I know it because people on benefits only want an easy ride' without ever getting into the reasoning behind their views - it suggests that they're not actually interested in an exchange of views. It's not really 'the way' in which they answer, it's whether they engage in good faith or not.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

Do you ever consider that actually you are derailing by insisting that poster answer?

It very much seems like you're saying that unless someone answers in the way that you want, they are disruptive.

I think overall, everyone is ironically blind to the fact that they are as influenced by their biases as the people they are speaking about.

I agree. One thing that really makes me cross is when a stepmother refers to the children's mother as their BM (birth mother). It's an accepted form on many forums but there are those who cannot wait to leap in reprimanding the OP for using a common term. Not helpful just stirring and derailing.

So rude and unnecessary.

Agree. But when everyone else is responding it takes a lot of will power not to respond to something egregiously wrong or awful. The trolls know how to wind people up, and most of us are guilty of enabling them at some point or other.

Quite a lot of them definitely have “transphobia”
as their hobby horse, hate read FWR and are often wanging on about it. It must be deathly dull for the posters who want to discuss if an outlandish CF thread is made up.

So, the observation still stands that if you find their obdurate unwillingness to comprehend anything annoying, the best thing to do is to not engage them and ignore them on threads. If everyone did that their presence would be highly muted.

Agree.

There’s been an area of Reddit that was specifically for ppl who had been accused of trolls by mn so they went over there to discuss if posters were real or not.

it’s evolved into a base for more general trolling now - not sure how much but I did get that impression last time I looked at it.

But it is notable that most of the people who I identify as trolls do not compulsively sea-lion. They're relatively good at only responding if their own comments have been responded to. So, the observation still stands that if you find their obdurate unwillingness to comprehend anything annoying, the best thing to do is to not engage them and ignore them on threads. If everyone did that their presence would be highly muted

yes agreed, the trouble is it only takes one person to respond and before you know it the whole thread has become focused on them.

There used to be a few men hanging around here. I don't even mean men pretending to be women. I mean men openly saying there were here to mansplain to women. They at least seem to have gone away.

There was a mod post the other day warning about posters who suggest to other posters to not engage trolls. So, mumsnet seems to sensitive to anti-troll collective action.

But it is notable that most of the people who I identify as trolls do not compulsively sea-lion. They're relatively good at only responding if their own comments have been responded to. So, the observation still stands that if you find their obdurate unwillingness to comprehend anything annoying, the best thing to do is to not engage them and ignore them on threads. If everyone did that their presence would be highly muted.

To put it another way, they're highly prevalent in MN because we collectively indicate we want them to be by interacting with them - that's how discussion forums work. Hopefully that observation isn't breaking MN guidelines.