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.

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

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.

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.

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

The Dawkins approach is a personal agenda.

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.

Should they be shown respect, though, Bertrand?

I don't really know what "show respect" means.

I think people should do their very best to be polite and kind to each other. But I also think we should always be prepared to defend our opinions, think about them and be prepared to change them. And I am pretty sure that I don't regard anything as sacrosanct. Anything should be up for debate.

I've asked before about what "respect" means. For me it's all a bit "Take your cap off, boy" and cenotaphs and standing for the Nstional Anthem. Automaitic civilized public behaviour, if you like. I donMt actually know how I would show respect for another person,s faith. If I went into their place of worship, I would behave appropriately- and I have always stopped my children from blaspheming because it might upset someone who overheard them. But that's not respect- it's basic good manners. I suppose for me "respect" is something you show to someone who is better than you. Some Christians are better than me. But not because they are Christians.

This whole respect question is unclear.
There are rules on Mumsnet about No personal attacks or Deliberately inflammatory behaviour that apply to all threads.

Are people with a religious beliefs suggesting that these deserve something different beyond what happens elsewhere on this forum?

Being polite and friendly is a nice way for people to behave, but it doesn't always happen, and is not something that can or should be controlled.

People are disrespectful of my views and choices, " a wishy washy liberal left-winger". People say derogatory things about politicians I believe in and respect. I don't for one moment believe that I have the right to complain on Site Stuff that my beliefs are being disrespected.

I think the point Bertrand makes about expectations created by religious privilege is very perceptive..

I like it when an alternative view is put forward as Bert has too. Religious privilege.

Maybe the trouble is that in RL people are usually too polite (and socially conditioned) to say anything out loud about the religious beliefs of people they engage with and that has created a sense of entitlement and shock when they encounter something different on an anonymous forum.

I do think the nub of the issue is that people don't know what respect is.

So treating other people with respect is out of the question.

I don't discuss religion in rl, unless observing a special day and it's only with my family. When I did discuss religion it was at a RC School.

'Respect is something you show to someone that is better than you'

I usually enjoy your posts Bertrand (dont agree with many of them but that's another matter) but the comment is above is nonsense.

Well, no, it's not nonsense because the full sentence was "I suppose for me "respect" is something you show to someone who is better than you"..............

It seems to me that all that is required for a discussion forum is the rule that already exists, namely that people refrain from personal attacks; if we start introducing rules that we have to show respect for other people's views at all times, it becomes unworkable. For example, I really cannot feel respect for the view that Donald Trump is the greatest living human being, but I can be reasonably polite about it if someone expresses that view. If MN is going to tell me that I can't robustly point out all the evidence that he's an arsehole because I have to respect the other person's views, I suspect it could be the beginning of the end as it would become such a boring place. And I can't see why views on religion should be treated any differently.

Bertrand regardless of what you think about Christian privilege within institutions in this country, this thread is about MN. Specifically the derailment of a large number of threads where the OP has raised an issue of faith and worship for discussion. The result of the derailment is that conversation over these type of issues is shut down. So, should MN take steps to moderate?

Derailment has observed to be an issue on other boards, for example the feminist board too. Yes, occasional innocent diversions can be fruitful and provide for an interesting conversation but persistent, purposeful diversions do undoubtedly shut down conversation.

Moderation needn't be harsh. People could report what they see as persistent, purposeful diversions by a poster. MN could issue a warning to that poster to start a new thread or stay on topic and subsequently delete posts if they don't. So what if several posters decamp from one thread to another? This would enable more conversation not less.

I think, as far as I can gather, you link 'respect' with 'deference'. I don't expect there to be deference for Christian posters on MN. However, I think it is wrong not to be able have a conversation about specific aspects of faith and worship, without posters piling in to derail the thread, by filling it up with questions and comments which demand posters defend their faith. With the moderation issue, it could happen across the boards. So there would be equality there.

Personally I see 'respect' more as behaving kindly and politely, I attempt to respect all people just because I prefer it to behaving unkindly or agressively or sneeringly - not that I am never guilty of being less than respectful.

"Be nice."

Bleaach. Like one of those signs you see in shops saying " It's nice to be nice".

I don't really want to live in a world where everyone is "nice". Afraid to challenge assumptions, views and structures. Afraid to speak up to defend the oppressed, afraid to challenge those who wield power.

Sometimes being nice is not useful or helpful. Sometimes being nice allows those in power to carry on abusing, to ride roughshod.

The thing is, those who are deliberately trying to derail the conversation, so it's shut down, only succeed if people engage with them. Once it's obvious what they're doing - and it usually doesn't take long to realise it - then just ignore them. Then you've won, rather than them.

If they're at it constantly, then it's time to report and get MNHQ to deal with them.

But trying to insist that posters on MN (or on any other public forum) stay on topic is nonsense - and unworkable. How would you define 'on topic', given that different posters will have (inevitably) different perspectives on the OP? Who gets to control the topic?