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.

Capsium, it is you who are repeatedly calling for a rule whereby if anyone is perceived to be derailing a thread they are prevented from doing so and required to start a new thread. I would agree with Biwi that that does seem to advocate a narrow and controlling approach, and it is not insignificant that you only seem to call for it on threads about religion.

I have said, numerous times, that that rule regarding moderation of persistent and purposeful derailment of thread could be applied across the boards.

As the OP ,was primarily discussing religious threads particular attention was applied to how derailment shutting down conversation has meant posters have specifically felt unable discuss specific aspects of faith.

I have explained earlier, numerous times, how moderating derailment would in fact in one way allow for more freedom in conversation, as posters could not use derailment as a means of shutting down conversations at will.

My concern is mainly for these posters who feel unable to post about their faith. I feel myself robust enough, to counter / call out / ignore any derailing challenges ... So for myself am unconcerned. It would be interesting to see, though, how a guideline regarding derailment if issued , would affect the boards most affected by this issue. I personally think it would aid more in depth conversation, certainly over faith issues ( which I do have a particular interest in).

I'd really like to see an example of a thread that has been purposefully derailed.

I have seen it happen on threads in feminism when the MRA invade, but it is swiftly stomped on. Sometimes too swiftly, in my opinion- I think it's a good idea on occasion to give people enough rope to hang themselves with. But they are an actual movement with an agenda. Who does it on religious threads?

I have said how that would take a lot of time Bertrand, and why it is difficult to spot retrospectively, when you asked this question before. This is time I just have not got, I'm afraid. As other posters have already alluded to, I have spent a great deal of time on this thread already when I probably should be doing other things.

But if you have enough time, Bertrand, perhaps you could give some good examples of stompage on the feminism threads - it could perhaps educate us over on the philosophy / religion/ spirituality boards, how to more effectively deal with derailments!

What happens in the feminism boards wouldn't be a help- the trolling is so overt and usually so offensive that nobody is in any doubt and MNHQ steps n very quickly.

It does rather strike me that if an example of these purposefully derailed threads doesn't spring easily to your mind, it can't be a very common occurrence.............

Well, you don't know me very well Bertrand. I don't like making specific accusations unless I am very sure and I am aware that much will be open to interpretation.

An official guideline from my perspective is most useful, as it draws a line under what is unacceptable. Until that guideline is officially issued, I feel uncomfortable highlighting where people may have fallen fowl of it in the past, when there was no such guideline. People on the thread, may have been complicit in the diversion, perhaps less than willingly because they thought the diversion was 'fair game'.

The OP has already highlighted threads she has had a problem with, in terms of this issue.

But Lumpy, although that must obviously have been very unpleasant and upsetting, those posts could easily have been reported to MNHQ as personal attacks. That's very different from derailment.

Did you report the horrible posts?

I question whether it really would take such a lot of time to find these derailed threads. Surely if it happens as often as you suggest, capsium, you could find a couple of examples relatively quickly using Advanced Search with, say, "christian" as a search term and limiting it to the last three months?

I am very sorry that your mental health is fragile.

But I honestly don't think we should have to post with the assumption that somebody with fragile mental health is reading. If you said that on your thread and people continued to post in a way you found upsetting then that is obviously despicable, and I am shocked that nobody reported the posters on your behalf.

I don't post much on the P/R board but when I did recently it ended up getting derailed slightly. That's fine, it happens. But when the OP asked to try and get back on topic they were responded to with: "Sorry OP, but you're posting on a public board, so tough!"

I just don't think that's polite. And it isn't a question of not allowing criticism of religion, just having a time and place for it.

FWIW I get just as annoyed, if not more so, by the constant derailment of any thread about cycling. If it happens occasionally then that is to be expected, but every single bloody time is tiresome. It is difficult to police this sort of thing as often it's not the same people. For some reason, threads about cycling act as a magnet for people who want to have a pop at cyclists. From this thread and a quick look through the P/R board it seems similar happens there.

The 'best' discussion I know of is pretty heavily regulated in terms of keeping things on topic. Not that debate is shut down. Quite the opposite I find. If tangents develop then people start threads specifically on them, and the original discussion can still be had. All too often on here you just end up with people talking across each other. Not that a heavily regulated discussion would work on MN, it's too big for that. But it would be nice if people didn't derail threads too much, and start their own if it is a significant tangent, particularly if the OP felt the tangent was overriding what they set out to discuss. (Again, disclaimer, I know that the OP doesn't hold any special prerogative over how a discussion should go. And I don't think anything heavy handed from MN is worthwhile, unless there is a pattern of behaviour from a particular poster.)

But Augusta because there has been no guideline on derailment, they would be difficult to detect. People engage when the derailleur says things too annoying to go unchallenged but then it looks like they are complicit in a diverting conversation.

It really depends on posters feelings at the time, as to whether a diversion is welcome or not and as such a natural evolution of the thread conversation. Being able to report anonymously for persistent and purposeful derailment would indicate to MN when and where a diversion, from the topic the OP raised, really is not welcome.

We don't have this facility at the moment - so the thread conversation is often shut down and people exit the thread, as it fills up with derailing posts or people engage, which can appear as if they are cooperating with the diversion. It is impossible to say, conclusively, what is happening retrospectively without posters disclosing the reason they exit or engage.

As I have said, because of the above situation, I feel uncomfortable accusing people before a guideline is officially set. Derailleurs have not done anything wrong in terms of MN guidelines. This fact can make people feel forced to engage with a derailleur, as derailment is seen as 'fair game' but it also makes the rest of the people on the thread complicit in the derailment.

In what way do you feel "forced" to engage with a "derailer" capsium? I notice that you do very readily, even from this thread.

I like to resolve issues, pearly, if possible. So I often will talk about them if someone brings them up. Maybe I'm too hopeful that these issues can be resolved...

Lumpy I am wondering if your thread is the one I did complain about (as I mentioned upthread) but I cannot honestly remember as there has been a couple over the years. In that case MN came back and said no guidelines about personal attack had been broken but I replied saying the persistent ridicule, belittling and derision, even if not personal attack, was putting people off posting and they agreed, saying they would post a "be nice" message on the thread and e-mail a couple of the nastier posters about their tone so often MN do try to mediate even if we are not all aware of it.

It is very difficult to "legislate" on these things. I think we all agree that discussion and disagreement are fine but outright attack, insult and belittling is not. There are dissenting posters who are reasonable and measured, it is the
condescending nastiness that does MN no credit. Sadly there are some people around who see it as ok to hijack these threads and close down discussion.

lumpy- but if capsium feels it's wrong to engage in derailment then why does she do it unless she feels forced?

By engaging with the derailer she is equally guilty.