AIBU to think people on MN should stop directly engaging with you once you’ve asked them to?

[ThatJadeLion]

I find it utterly baffling that some people cannot accept that others may hold a different view on Mumsnet and similar platforms.
Of course it’s a discussion forum, and people are entitled to disagree, continue the wider conversation and express their own opinions. But once somebody has clearly said, “We have different views, I don’t wish to discuss this with you any further,” I think that boundary should be respected.

Some posters continue quoting and directly responding to the same person again and again, becoming increasingly argumentative or aggressive, even after being asked to stop. At that point, it no longer feels like a normal exchange of views; in some cases, it can begin to feel like someone is being deliberately hounded.

AIBU to think there should be a way to prevent another poster from repeatedly quoting or directly engaging with you... or at least a point at which they are expected to let it go? They could still continue the general discussion, just without persistently coming back to somebody who has made it clear they no longer wish to engage.

YANBU. FB is dreadful for it, especially around trans rights. People will not accept that a lot of people (myself included) don’t want men in women’s safe spaces. They just go on and on. I don’t bother commenting much anymore 🤷‍♀️

I don't think that would work on public forums. You need the self control to stop reading responses from people who are winding you up, or to leave the thread.

You should be able to block people

One of my favourite phrases though I haven't used it on MN is "if I agreed with you we'd both be wrong". I never engage after that

They do it to bait. Ive had it a few times where ive said I wouldn't be responding anymore dickhead and theyve carried on quoting and trying to poke and saying I wasnt responding because I had no argument.

Just pass/agg yellow thumb and ignore. Let them wind themselves up and think theyve won. Bless their little cotton socks.

The worst ones for me are the obtuse posters, there's a few around, "so youre saying.....are you comparing......are you suggesting....." and they make shit up thats not even remotely connected. All just to get a rise and keep it going and draw people in, any attention better than none etc. Pretty sad.

Nah. You don't get to pick and choose who responds to you on a public forum when you've chosen to post something publicly.

If someone doesn't like what a person is saying to them they need the self-control to just ignore it. Not to try and take control over who can post on a site they don't own.

They’re horrible people who wouldn’t dream of speaking to people in real life that way!

If a thread is being derailed like this, you can report all the posts to MNHQ, who will take action against the offenders.

It's against the TGs.

To be fair, you were repeatedly expressing an ‘opinion’ that wasn’t based in any actual fact (that opinion being that Amanda Knox murdered Meredith Kercher) while refusing to offer any justification for that opinion, so you were bound to be challenged.

I think it's best to stop engaging and report someone who is hounding you beyond levels of reasonable debate and after you have asked them to stop.

It’s the trans rights people that do this haranguing. They are so aggressive. I’d love to be able to block them.

I sometimes really enjoy having a good argument on MN though.

I think of it as like a newspapers letters column.

you have absolutely no control who writes a reply to you.

i stop reading and responding if I’m pissed off.

I think if you’re suggesting ideas for topics like colours to paint a wall or what kind of takeaway to get, then yes I agree with you. If you’re making more serious statements like, oh I don’t know, accusing someone who has been fully exonerated of murder of being guilty then you need to be prepared to back up your point of view or retract the statement.

I think it depends how it is done.

Let's agree to disagree and stop responding to each other - fine and respectful.

You're wrong, I'm right, here's my latest arguments now stop responding to me - not fine. These people are trying to get the last word in by ordering the other person to step away.

From contentious threads I've seen the second is far more common

YABVU. People have self control, and conversations are two way.

If you’ve said you don’t want to discuss it anymore then you are in control of that - don’t reply. It really is that simple.

Or, as in this case...

I'm going to make a statement that I claim is fact but then tell you to stop asking me about it when you ask for any evidence of my fact.

This. Stomping your feet and saying you don’t want to engage anymore is not how public forums work. You leave the conversation if you can’t ignore or skip someone’s comments.

Basically this.

What too many people do is post a load of argument then tell you they're off so not to reply, because what they actually want is the last word. In which case, fuck that.

"Nah. You don't get to pick and choose who responds to you on a public forum when you've chosen to post something publicly."

Exactly this.

There is a way. Stop posting.

You can't stop people directly engaging, but you can choose not to engage back. Some people on MN just like to have the last word.

Just had a quick search of OPs other posts this morning, and found it instructive. For those who haven't, she's seen her arse because she accused an MOJ victim of being a murderer and didn't like the response she got. Funnily enough she left that context out!

As others have said, you can control what you want to respond to or ignore, but policing what other people do or say on the internet never ever works.

And also, as others have pointed out - what if you are wrong ?

I very rarely look when I have been quoted. I see the emails saying I’ve been quoted but don’t reply only usually to the OP.