Anti-Religious Trolling On Mumsnet

[DioneTheDiabolist]

I get that not everyone is religious and that some people are very anti-religious (some with good reasons).

But some MNetters are religious, others are simply curious. So how come so many threads are allowed to be derailed by anti-religious trolls? Today a thread about Good Friday was deleted because a troll came on. FFS, it's Easter! Threads about Islam are regularly derailed by Islamophobes. On a thread seeking information on Judaism in the Philosophy & Religion topic, a troll has posted LMFAO. Ok, serious question, why does the Jewish God make all men wear a funny beards? She continues venting for a few posts before eventually exiting the thread saying that she is on drugs because It's Easter, party time.

She is a MN regular, like most of the anti-religious trolls here. I have reported her posts but they still stand.

Trolls are not interested in knowing what other people think or believe. They have no desire to discuss the point of actual threads and rarely start threads of their own regarding their issues with religion or belief. They just derail threads in the hope of driving all talk of religion and different beliefs off MN. And they are succeeding.

Why are MNHQ allowing this to happen? Deleting threads instead of dealing with posters? Allowing blatant anti-religious trolling to derail threads that people may find supportive or informative? Is MN a religion free zone? Because if it is, that's ok. I just think that religious posters should be told. Then they can go elsewhere if they wish to discuss their beliefs.

I think you should delete all the shite aimed at Ohfuck, including the criticism of her username and the pathetic allusions to her having been Reported, MNHQ.

The "one poster" seems to be rather enjoying it though........

How perspicacious of you, Bertrand, through the screen and the whole internet.

I don't think having a sweary username is necessarily against guidelines but it's something people should consider. I'm sure it's usually meant to be humorous but on certain threads it could create the wrong impression possibly

'We'd appreciate it if you could use the same courtesy when posting messages on Talk as you would use when speaking to someone face to face. Please do bear in mind how difficult this parenting business can be, and if there's one thing all of us could do with, it's some moral support.'

This is the same as it's always been. So, the idea that we have to accept rudeness on mumsnet or use another parenting forum doesn't stand up really.

Thank you DawnMN. Your post regarding Deliberately Inflammatory Posters was very helpful indeed.

It is clear from this thread that many MNetters feel the same as I do. Would it be helpful if instead of just reporting a single post, it be pointed out to MNHQ that such posters have a history of trolling/derailing religious threads? Perhaps giving examples?

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread. And to MNHQ for dealing with the troll on the Judaism thread.

Hi there Dione. It's always helpful to have as much info as possible in reports but don't worry too much. We can always have a look behind the scenes (and on the spreadsheets on the walls - just kidding) and see if someone is being reported again and again for the same thing and if so, if it was justified.

It is something we'll discuss again at HQ but religious intolerance is a thorny issue and we don't like to close down debate. If a post clearly is a personal attack, or breaches talk guidelines, we'll always delete but to a certain extent we think it's important that people can challenge the beliefs of others and discuss them (in a polite and civil manner, of course!). If we said posters couldn't attack a religion it would be very hard to know where to draw the line as what would be regarded as incredibly offensive in one religion might not be at all in another, and vice versa.

We think that generally encouraging an atmosphere of mutual respect is usually the best way but if we feel any posters are being deliberately inflammatory rather than simply having strong feelings and wanting to discuss them, we will of course take a closer look.

I think that rather than deleting certain posts, it is incumbent on the people posting to judge for themselves whether their intention is not really to add anything to a given thread and therefore to not try to derail it. There are plenty of threads on that board which do invite debate.

MNHQ Surely people springing onto threads on the religion and philosophy boards, straight into threads and making comments such as 'None, he doesn't exist ' , ' People who hear God are schizophrenic' , 'you're all barking mad', etc are quite obviously there purely just to take the pee and wind people up.

asking questions is different. Starting their own thread asking questions and having a debate is different. Perhaps making their comments on a thread elsewhere is different, even the same comments. But doing such as the above on threads by people of faith, on a board for religion and philosophy is clearly of one intention.

Hear, hear TripTrap.

I was on the Good Friday thread and it was disgraceful how one poster was so aggressive. Her reaction was completely disproportionate to thread title and what displeased me the most was how she suggested to the OP she should seek out a more 'spiritual' site. I thought there was room for all on Mumsnet?

HQ, surely you should positively say that posters should not "attack a religion". That shouldn't be in question? Or a lack of one - clearly no attacks on atheism would be acceptable, either.
Yes, posters should be able to state, and discuss, their own disagreement with a religion, or with atheism. Yes, they should even be able to "attack" (if that is the right word) what they deem to be unjust and immoral acts performed in the name of religion (or atheism).
But "attack a religion"? Doesn't that constitute an attack on people's right to worship freely, in the faith of their choice? (Or indeed, not to worship at all).

Lots of people made the point that there was no significance for them whatsoever yesterday. They declared themselves to be atheists and all was well, except for one, who hung around making the same aggressive comments ad infinitum to the extent that the thread had to be deleted. incidentally, the OP apologised several times for the 'offence' but that fell in deaf ears.

There is room for the spiritual and non-spiritual on here. Nobody should be told they must leave and find a more 'spiritual' site.

I agree.
And there is space too for debate threads. But the jumping on discussion threads or support threads, which has happened is.not on. It's appropriation (sp) of other people's spaces, there's no need for it, there's room for all.

We can't have a rule that you should never attack a religion. Should we, for example, all respect the beliefs of Satanists? Why should religious beliefs alone have protected status? Why not belief in fairies, or politicians, or the superiority of any particular race or gender? And define "attack": where are you going to draw the line between robust argument and an attack?

IonaMN, I don't was MNHQ to shut down debates. If people wish to debate religion, I will happily read and contribute to threads that they start.

What I am talking about is the continuous trolling and derailment of threads where people are discussing their personal beliefs. Mutual respect would be brilliant, but it is seriously lacking in posters who have no interest in the discussion taking place on the thread but simply want to preach at posters who believe differently to them. Or worse, use MNetters as targets of their anger regarding RL events that they didn't deal with in RL. Religious people are not a hive mind. And religious MNetters should be able to discuss aspects of their faith as individuals. Yet posters here have said that they are reluctant to do so because they know they will be insulted, ridiculed or blamed for the actions of others.

As I said in my OP, the trolls and derailers are not interested in discussing whatever is in the title, they are not interested in the beliefs of the posters on the threads they just want to derail because they hate religion (which is fair enough, but why can't they start their own threads) or vent their displaced anger on MNetters who did nothing to deserve it.

We respect race. Why not religion too?

I don't understand the claims made yesterday and today that religious topics can't be discussed in chat. It's a spurious argument to try to justify bad behaviour.

There's a massive difference between debate threads and support threads. Posters who derail religious threads know that they're doing it. There's no pretence at debate just a tirade of insults. It's blatantly obvious that they are trying to shut down the topic. If MN is for all parents then that should include people of faith and attempts to belittle and attack them for having faith should be deleted. It is a protected characteristic and there are hundreds of other threads available for posters who don't want to contribute.

Well, legally , discrimination wrt sexuality, age, disability, race and religious beliefs or none are treated equally so it should be the same here.

How do you "encourage an atmosphere of mutual respect" with people who come onto threads to troll?

I don't "respect race" automatically. If somebody started trying to tell me that their race was better than mine and deserved more privileges and I needed to put up and shut up, then I would be pretty vocal about it.

That is exactly what some people of faith say. They expect special treatment and when they don't get it, they think they are being persecuted

You can easily have a rule against attacking religions. There is one in my workplace, for example. This is true of many workplaces.
I agree that exactly what constitutes an attack will always be open to debate - but that is true of personal attacks too, etc. There will always be an element of subjectivity, but that is not a reason not to have such a rule.
My own definition is that attacking something is attempting to shut it down by any means possible. As distinct from disagreement, which involves stating opinion in a contextually appropriate manner. Obviously all subjective concepts - there will never be a one size fits all way of judging things in matters like this. But my feeling is that in principle attacks on any faith, or absence thereof, aren't acceptable on a modern forum.

I have no idea why religion is a protected characteristic- and more protected than any others because religious institutions are allowed to discriminate on the grounds of the other protected characteristics.

The other protected characteristics are things you can't help (with the exception of marital status, but that's hardly a biggie) - your sex, your sexual orientation, your race, your disability and so on. But to choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence (and the test is that it must be something that ISN'T open to being persuaded by facts or evidence!) seems bonkers to me. And that we must all go along with it, and it is afforded this special protected status - I honestly hope future generations look back with utter beamusement.

Bertrand, no one is saying their faith should be more "protected" than your atheism. They should not be attacked on here for their faith. You should not be attacked on here for your atheism. All equal.

There is a problem when people say that they genuinely don't believe that they are causing offence. I find it hard to believe; and yet I do think some people genuinely can't accept that they have caused offence, pretty much ever. If people are offended, it's their own fault. You see the same thing with racism and other hate speech. It's a brick wall.