Just explain the recipe shit to me please

[speakingwoman]

Just that. I am, I suspect, very slightly on the spectrum and I find it confusing and stress-inducing. It always reminds me of experiences of being bullied.

Is it something I should interpret as a signal that one or more pp is not in good faith?

Is there some positive intent behind it?

Please don’t reply by repeating it.

@speakingwoman if you'd ever wondered why so little reasoned debate happens on FWR might I suggest this recipe malarky (along with the slurs "plopper", "sealion", "seagull" and having a cake to ice) might be contributory?

I do wonder how much grown-up debate anybody here's really interested in when they carry on like it's a children's playground. All the strong, intelligent women I know grew out of petty clique behaviors not long after primary school.

Ah, good job you're here to raise the standard of debate and put us all right Rat.

I didn't know half the lingo - and still don't, if I ever venture into AIBU! - or get any of the shared understandings when I arrived here a couple of years ago. I just learned as I went and didn't go about haranguing longstanding members. I do not understand why this is so taxing.

Ah, good job you're here to raise the standard of debate and put us all right Rat.

The few of us who try are usually of a perfectly adequate standard from what I've seen, but then you (general you) talk to us like shit, refuse to engage because you don't like or don't agree with what we're saying, find any angle you can to assassinate our characters and then wonder why there aren't so many of us around.

Talk to who? Who is "us"?

It's really very simple Assassinated. In a debate (which is of course what I was talking about, having started my post by saying there was very little debate in FWR) there are usually two broad "sides". You and I are on opposite sides, for example, of the trans debate. Those on my side I refer to as "us", "you" may refer to "us" as "them". That's sort of how these things work.

Wait, what? A thread started with a spurious topic with the motive to assassinate somebody's character is being complained about because instead of assassinating the OP's character, women posted recipes?

You've surpassed yourself with that one, Rat!

Actual nonsense Lang, couldn't make head nor tail of that one.

I think rat means that people who agree with him/her (I don't know rat's sex) are 'us' and thus debaters of decent standard, and people who disagree with him/her are 'you', and, not.

Something like that.

I understand that's your interpretation of what happens and your feelings about it, but generally it's not my interpretation of what happens here.

Actual nonsense Lang, couldn't make head nor tail of that one

It isn't that taxing.

“ All the strong, intelligent women I know grew out of petty clique behaviors not long after primary school.”

maybe this means we’re trans

I didn't say anything about the caliber of the debaters on your side of the debate Barracker. FWIW it's clear you have some very intelligent women on your side, and a good number who are no stranger to advanced sales techniques, propagandising and even NLP, be it through education or perhaps they're simply naturals. But the vast majority are of course no more or less capable than any of us; we all have our strengths and weaknesses.

I understand that's your interpretation of what happens and your feelings about it, but generally it's not my interpretation of what happens here.

I think that's really fair actually. Just giving my perspective.

A thread started with a spurious topic with the motive to assassinate somebody's character

I did not think it was spurious nor an attempt to assasinate any one's character. It quickly turned into a "let's defend Posie" but that is because some of you chose to interpret it as charcater assassination.

I did not think it was spurious nor an attempt to assasinate any one's character. It quickly turned into a "let's defend Posie" but that is because some of you chose to interpret it as charcater assassination.

Not me, miss, not me! I honestly don't think I posted on it, did I? Unless I joined in at a Weetabix-friendly point?

NLP? Oh deary me. Do we hypnotise the innocent into evil opinions as well? All through the medium of recipe?

I assume there's also a cauldron and some eye of newt involved.

but that is because some of you chose to interpret it as charcater

I didn't post on whatever thread but it sounds as though people made a choice to not slag off someone. Are we now saying that isn't allowed and if the person in question is gender critical they must carry on and slag that person off? For real.

I knew you'd love that Lang. I wasn't actually going as far as the tinfoil-hattery you're reading into it, but it amuses me to watch you walk straight into things. I'll clarify; some people have a natural knack for being very convincing. For some that knack is learnt, and for some it's something they came to all under their own steam. That is absolutely all I meant by that.

The recipes thing in large part developed because any even slightly reasonable response to sealioning trolls just feeds them, and genuine posters trying to engage end up frustrated and demoralised. Recipes are useful because they act as a warning to posters and derail the sealioning.

I dont start the recipe stuff as i am rubbish at telling who trolls are

Im ace at recognising goady mo'fo' and stirrers

But i tend to just ignore those threads

(Unless someone mentions something like cake...)

Ugh, it's mumsnet 'old timers' thinking they are being witty. I cringe when I see it happen.

Oh god, that goes back way further than Mumsnet. Used to see a lot of it used back in the days of deepest, darkest Usenet to head off the wandering trolls and derailers.