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.

Respect has a couple of meanings. One is about admiration, I respect the skill which my cat has is hunting birds although I wish she didn't do it. Another is about regard for feelings, wishes and views. I respect my conservative Christian friend's views on a number of issues but as a progressive/liberal/academic Christian I reserve the right to disagree with them. It is this second meaning that we are talking about.

To begin to understand another viewpoint it seems essential to listen to the other, really listen. What is frustrating about M N is the insistence by a minority of posters that all Christians are fundamentalists, that the Bible must be read literally and that those of us with an adult and mature faith still have the childlike or teenager stage of faith that the atheists or secular humanists have rejected.

Pointing out derailments and ignoring off topic interventions by posters taking their hobby horses out for a canter is one way to keep the religion threads a place where people can explore, share and discuss issues of faith and spirituality. MNHQ have taken a decision about light touch moderation which may be commercial or there may be another reason. It doesn't work on religious discussion boards where one group end up dominating. I've moderated a number of Christian boards and have experience of this. So those of us who want to try and make it work can have a go.

MNHQ, you seem perfectly able to decide where the limits are regarding debate around David Cameron, and you enforce these limits diligently and on the basis of your moral principles. You have no problem putting freedom of speech to bed for these purposes even though Cameron's disability cuts are a disgrace and suggesting he avoids reasoned debate by referring inappropriately to his person experience of disability is a reasonable point.

So imagine God is someone you might like to invite for a live web chat. You will then suddenly find lots of moral reasons to ensure that debate about him is 'reasonable' and 'fair'.

Should we respect your opinion that respect is for people better than you? Or should we respect HC's opinion that that is nonsense. Would you like to defend thst point of view on thread after thread, ad infinitum?

I would like someone to address the point about the private and public aspects of faith. People keep bringing up privilege and faith schools etc. Valid discussion to be had. Nobody afaics wants to shut down debate. But people exploring aspects of their own personal faith should be allowed to do that. Presently they cannot, as some people see mention of religion and go on about sky fairy, superstition, delusion. That's deliberate and I would think very enjoyable for them.
That's the elephant in the room.

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

It still isn't workable. What one person sees as a persistent purposeful diversion, many other people may see as an interesting area for debate and they will respond to it. Should they be warned as well? Should all their posts be deleted? Frankly people would get incredibly frustrated, others would see it as unnecessarily heavy-handed censorship by MNHQ, and threads would just die.

pearly you can look at it this way, some degree of moderation, in the way I have explained above, will allow for more subjects to be discussed, more conversation.

It will protect people's freedoms not impinge them because at the moment all a poster has to do is persistently bombard the thread with distracting comments and questions in order to derail it and shut down conversation.

Do you really want some conversations, which are perfectly within talk guidelines, to not be possible on MN?

It still isn't workable. What one person sees as a persistent purposeful diversion, many other people may see as an interesting area for debate and they will respond to it. Should they be warned as well? Should all their posts be deleted? Frankly people would get incredibly frustrated, others would see it as unnecessarily heavy-handed censorship by MNHQ, and threads would just die.

Subjectivity is present in all forms of moderation but there is still a place for it. The warning would should signify there are a significant number of posters who would like to move a derailing conversation off thread - to another if posters want to carry it on. No censorship, just a requirement to move derailing conversations to another thread.

Capsium, the suggestion of such lockdowns and control of views is quite unpalatable to me. Perhaps it it more comfortable for religious adherents to feel controlled in this way- it's what they are comfortable with after all- but for many of us it would feel like being nannied. I don't need a dictator, benevolent or otherwise.
Mumsnet rules work fine as they are.

"Do you really want some conversations, which are perfectly within talk guidelines, to not be possible on MN?"

Nice passive aggressive twist there.

"But then accuse another poster of passive aggression?"

But I am not the one who has the more finely attenuated moral compass. What with not having god and all.

pearl derogatory speculations about the nature of religious posters aside, we can prevent derailment ourselves, without moderation by 'calling out' every derailment - I am considering this myself.

However the reason I think moderation is a good idea, is that it might change the culture of these boards a little. It would signify that purposeful, persistent derailment really is not an acceptable way to behave.

Purposeful derailment , as I understand it, is more about seeking to control than the moderation I have outlined, as it is making certain conversations extremely difficult and deterring posters from posting. Moderation would still allow the conversations which were off topic to carry on but on another thread.

I think having an attenuated moral compass is the problem.

I've been thinking about this idea of Christian privilege and respect in RL.

Within myself and my social social circles I see many instances of this occurring it's not unlike gender stereotyping in that it's so intertwined with our social conditioning we rarely take a step back to consider how strange and inconsistent it is.

If a friend mentions she has spent the morning at church with their children people without any faith will smile pleasantly and maybe comment about how lucky they are about being part of the community. Whilst someone like myself taking DS delivering my political party's leaflets can expect a few light-heated digs about indoctrination of DS.

I suspect Muslims and Jews don't experience the same level of conditioned respect. Again in my experience I've seen friends closely questioned about their pilgrimage to Mecca, and discussing the point and purpose of the kosher dietary rules. The tone and the content of the questioning demonstrated very little respect for their beliefs.

It often feels a bit like breaking a taboo to say anything awry, critical or even humorous about the Christian faith. For many of us, I suspect this comes from attending CofE schools as children.

Silver

Interesting, I come from a background where if someone goes to church, it is mentioned in hushed tones, as if there is something odd about it, sometimes an excuse is even made on their behalf, "Well, it is like a hobby, they get to see people, they're lonely" etc. ...so this conditioning does not seem to have reached all sectors of society.

Perhaps you could start a new thread about this though, as it doesn't really comment on whether moderating derailments is a good idea...

capsium, that's a yellow card- you are not staying on topic.

capsium I do hope you're not being serious.

After 744 posts, I think a little deeper exploration about why there are different views about Christian threads needing special official moderation.

There does seem to be a theme coming through from some of the Christian posters on here that deeper thinking, differing opinions and discussion is not to be encouraged.

I suspect that this may be a uniquely Christian view.

"Is relevant" is missing at the end of my first para above.

pearl sorry, no problem I can moderate my responses.

Without a report facility for derailments the only option is to point them out, politely and respectfully, thus I partially engaged with the point Silver raised, regarding her view of 'Christian privilege' and suggested a new thread could be started in this subject. With a report facility, ignoring then reporting persistent, purposeful derailments, would be enough.

capsium - you seem very keen on this very narrow, controlling way of people posting on MN. Why? I thought the points raised by Silver were interesting and pertinent, given the rest of the conversations on this thread.

And her point about an apparent lack of desire for different and/or deeper thinking relates directly, does it not, to wishing to control 'derailment'?

After 744 posts, I think a little deeper exploration about why there are different views about Christian threads needing special official moderation.

Ah, you didn't make it explicit that is what you were doing, Silver.

I would add an additional question though, in this exploration. Why is it deemed acceptable to divert any conversation, which discusses aspects of Christian Faith and worship, to a discussion where believers are required to defend their faith, thus shutting down the original discussion?

Regarding the moderation being 'special'. It does not have to be. There can be equality in this moderation across the boards. Up thread posts mentioned there is also a problem with persistent and purposeful derailments on other boards.

There does seem to be a theme coming through from some of the Christian posters on here that deeper thinking, differing opinions and discussion is not to be encouraged.

I suspect that this may be a uniquely Christian view.

And there we have it a derogatory speculation singling out Christians. Should this be how every thread that so much as mentions religious faith end up?

capsium - you seem very keen on this very narrow, controlling way of people posting on MN. Why? I thought the points raised by Silver were interesting and pertinent, given the rest of the conversations on this thread.

Seems a personal speculation, Biwi. As I have said in my previous posts, I see the prospect of moderation as less controlling than the purposeful, persistent derailment of threads. The distraction could be ignored but this just provides a platform to say whatever is liked, without challenge. Respond to the derailing comments and they serve their purpose, the thread is derailed and the discussion the OP raised is shut down.

And there we have it a derogatory speculation singling out Christians. Should this be how every thread that so much as mentions religious faith end up?

In fact, there we have a very precise illustration of the over-sensitivity that people are talking about. Of course the post capsium was responding to referred to what "some of the Christian posters" on here were saying because it was a simple statement of fact; non-Christian posters are not the ones saying that discussion has to be narrowed down and kept on one single track. If we have to ignore reality in order to "show respect" it becomes ridiculous, and it's not something we expect in relation to discussion on any other theme.