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.

Respond to the derailing comments and they serve their purpose, the thread is derailed and the discussion the OP raised is shut down.

But that is manifestly not the case. I regularly see threads where there are, in effect, two discussions going on - one relating to the original post, another exploring a related issue. Neither is shutting down the other.

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'?

I welcome deeper thinking. However it pays, to have some focus to discussion otherwise issues can never be fully considered, without distraction. If interesting issues were brought up, in tangents to a thread, do they not deserve a thread of their own to explore them fully? Rather than delegating the original issue raised for discussion, so that discussion disappears. People have more choice then, not less, over the discussion(s) they want to participate in.

But that is manifestly not the case. I regularly see threads where there are, in effect, two discussions going on - one relating to the original post, another exploring a related issue. Neither is shutting down the other.

This may be true, but we have a specific complaint noted in the OP and by several posters on here, that this is what they experience happening especially on threads concerning faith topics.

As I said before, moderation does not have to be harsh. If people are happy with 2 conversations running side by side on a thread, they won't report this as derailment. MN will make the decision as to what to do, if there are complaints.

However if persistent, purposeful derailments are made against MN guidelines, with appropriate consequences, then it send a clear message that such persistent, purposeful derailments are unacceptable.

People who don't want to derail, I would have thought, would be happy to decamp to another thread, perhaps with a link to signal where they have departed to.

^to be against MN guidelines, that should say.

I come back to the fact that I just can't see capsium's suggested rule ever being workable. If people want a discussion to diverge, that is what will happen, and no amount of requests that they start a new thread will make any difference; indeed, requests to do so would run the risk of derailing the discussion even further. If MN start deleting posts that allegedly satisfy this criterion, it is highly likely to cause resentment, questioning of their judgment, and again yet more derailing. If posters don't want the discussion to diverge, they won't respond to posts that tend that way.

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.

... which proves my point entirely. One poster thinks someone else's post offers an interesting perspective, whereas another thinks it's a derailment. There's never going to be a way to define it absolutely.

Another thing I don't understand is why people think the " derailing" is deliberate- and what the derailers get out of it.

Augusta well, I think reviewing the lack of moderation on purposeful derailments does require serious consideration. Simply my thoughts on the matter, though and I do not make the decisions.

At the very least I am pleased this conversation has happened. It gives an opportunity to highlight how the more purposeful malicious derailments, as opposed to natural diversions, might function to give a poster an unchallenged platform to promote their own agenda. So at least people are prepared for this possibility.

Yes, all change is different and comes with some advantages and disadvantages. I do think the moderation of derailments could be done in a way that is workable though, without being too heavy handed.

It is a real shame when a people begin to feel as if their conversations, that are within talk guidelines, are being unfairly and automatically shut down, just because they are discussing specific aspects of their religious faith. Personally I have not suffered greatly because of this, I have not come to MN yet asking much specific advice or support over a faith matter, but I can see how shutting down conversations, regarding specifics of religious faith, could be damaging to someone who is vulnerable in this area.

Another thing I don't understand is why people think the " derailing" is deliberate- and what the derailers get out of it

Bertrand I explained this in my earlier posts. It is quite clever really. Because people want to avoid the thread being derailed they ignore the derailing posts. This gives the derailleur a platform to say what they want without being challenged.

You are correct that not every conversational diversion is an intended derailment but I would say a persistent bombardment with comments and questions, that are unrelated to the issues raised in the OP, probably are intended to derail.

Capsium- seriously, could you show me?

capsium - you seem very keen on this very narrow, controlling way of people posting on MN. Why?

Bertrand, Silver's speculation above, which suggested I was personally 'keen on this very narrow, controlling way of people posting on MN', seemed rather personal as 1)it singled out myself, suggesting I was narrow and controlling in this respect, and 2) it assumes what I was suggesting is, indeed, narrow and controlling.

Er - it was me who said that, not Silver!

And it was about a way I perceived you wanting to control things. I didn't say I thought you were narrow or controlling. But I do think that your suggestion is narrow and controlling.

capsium I feel like you're wasting your time a bit here. This issue was done to death years ago on the FWR board where these kinds of derailments are extremely common. MNHQ has always made it pretty clear that they have no interest in which views are being expressed on a particular thread and will only moderate if the talk guidelines are being broken. Past history suggests that they won't have any interest in enforcing a no derailments rule.

BIWI sorry, my mistake, I see it was you now.

The way you have worded what I quoted, though, does not make it explicit that it is simply your view that the moderation I suggested is narrow and controlling. It assumes this is a given with, 'this very narrow...' And being 'keen' on stuff which is narrow and controlling, is hardly complementary, especially when you apply this keenness to somebody in particular.

NotDavid if that is the decision, so be it. I am pleased this issue has been raised for discussion, though. Added to this MN said earlier they were pleased this topic was brought up for discussion again. Changes are made occasionally.

Capsium- seriously, could you show me?

Show you what? What do you not understand about how the mechanism of purposeful derailment might work?

With apologies for a minor derailment . DionetheDiabolist, if you are reading, please feel free to raise the points you have made via PM on the thread. No need to "spare me embarassment"!

Capsium- I'd just like to read a thread that has been purposefully derailed.

It would take a trawl through past threads Bertrand, which as you know is time consuming.

Also, as there is no rule in place, as yet, against derailment, people often feel compelled to engage - which makes it difficult to detect whether the diversion has been purposefully engineered or willingly agreed to. What it requires, is knowing how posters feel about diversions in the thread conversation at the time - I am sure there have been allusions to not engaging with particular conversations on threads but I cannot remember which ones.

Only when posters feel they can report, as it deems purposeful derailment more clearly unacceptable, will it be possible to know more fully the extent of the problem.

If posters on the religion board decide to flag up derailments then it doesn't need any input from MNHQ. It just means that if someone comes to the board wanting to discuss an issue and the usual thing happens and someone decides to pile in with, and in no order ,all Christians are fundamentalists, I won't respect people of faith because people of faith I some parts of the world or at some point in history have done bad things, I don't like collective worship or the fact that some faith schools have an admissions criteria that involves going to church, I don't like the fact that christianity is the established religion, I think that all Christians are thick and it is only atheists who are the brights, the Bible should be taken literally even though mainstream Christians don't treat it as such, etc etc etc

Then we can get on with sharing and discussing in the usual way. Simples as the meerkats say.

the Bible should be taken literally even though mainstream Christians don't treat it as such,

You're missing the point. When non believers question why Christians don't take it literally it's because we know you don't but we're interested in how you explain it. I'm fairly certain, thank god, that the Christians on MN are way too moral to take the bible literally ;)

caesium - you can try and make it seem as if I was setting out to insult you if you like. Although that wasn't my intention. As far as possible I avoid personal attacks. However, I was questioning why you (because it's been mainly posts from you about this issue for most of this morning) wanted what I perceived to be a narrow and controlling way of dealing with posts/posters.

On any part of MN if people are being goady or are derailing a thread by peddling a specific agenda the best thing to do is ignore them. 99.9% of people will give up after a while if nobody engages with them.

Sorry - capsium not caesium. For some reason auto correct suddenly decided this is your name!