Bunbury's guide to community disruptors part 4

[BarbaraStrozzi]

Thought it was time for another of these. I'll just cut-and-paste the opening of the last thread:

The useful Bunbury Guide to Spotting Community Disruptors is constantly evolving.

The best research and advice is not to engage with community disruptors and trolls. As ever, if you suspect troll activity, report it to MNHQ.

This is a continuation of the first Public Service Announcement thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3438714-Bunbury-s-Public-Service-Announcement-2

Thread 3 was deleted with this note from MNHQ; We're sure there will be a Bunbury 4 around soon, but we'd be grateful if we could draw a line under the issues raised in this thread if there's to be a new one.

If and when you see threads plopped into FWR, especially a curious repeat of well worn topics, maybe check for poster history before engaging.

There are a number of posts/posters/threads that are reproduced on Twitter or Facebook to foment controversy using screen shots & flagging to either MNHQ to have threads or posters deleted. Sometimes, it’s used to approach commissioning editors with ideas for articles. It’s a tiresome tactic that we’ve had several community disruptor posters who themselves post the comments that they then highlight elsewhere as purported evidence of racism, religious intolerance, anti-men sentiments, or transphobia.

Some helpful links can be found in the first posts on thread 2 (linked above) but in essence FermatsTheorem recommended “that in the absence of a block/hide poster button, I suggest the following strategy (given that you're talking to the lurkers).

Do not name check the sealion. Instead, respond to a depersonalised paraphrase:

"It is sometimes erroneously suggested that blah. Blah is wrong for the following reasons (short and pithy). If you need more information re. debunking blah, here's a link."

Then (this next step is important to combat derailment) go back up thread to the last useful contribution to the discussion, make sure you do name check that contributor, and pick up the discussion from that point.”

Having a moment of nostalgia, recalling Bunbury's origins.

And a current thread with its Jordan P follower names put me in mind of the greek right of passage.

Teenage philosophy students, impressed by their own brilliance for reading a bit of Plato drop in and use the socratic method to illuminate the dark 'transphobic' cave of Mumsnet. It's part of a wider phenomenon that Donna Zuckerberg has recognised:

In the summer of 2015, she noticed an unprecedented level of traffic towards a piece entitled “Why is stoicism having a cultural moment?” and went down a rabbit hole to determine why. The results stunned her: men – or rather, misogynists – were using an armchair enthusiasm for the classics to justify manifestos of hate against women. The results were spreading online under a pseudo-intellectual guise, twisting ancient world philosophy to buttress a contemporary hatred of feminism. And it wasn’t a one-off.
...
But in the case of stoicism’s sudden revival, Zuckerberg found that an active corner of Reddit was applying Hellenistic philosophy to explain the pain and hardship white western men were suffering in the 21st century. Except these men didn’t consider themselves angry – they considered themselves oppressed.

"The ancient world was deeply misogynistic – it was a time when there was no word for rape, feminism did not exist and women’s actions were determined by male relatives,” says Zuckerberg. But now the classical texts are being “distorted and stripped of context” online to lend gravitas to campaigns of misogyny and white supremacy. Not only is it toxic but, as Zuckerberg calmly outlines in her new book, Not All Dead White Men , it is deeply dangerous.

www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/11/donna-zuckerberg-social-media-misoyny-violence-classical-antiquity-not-all-dead-white-men

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3420810-Donna-Zuckerberg-Social-media-has-elevated-misogyny-to-new-levels-of-violence

Not that long ago I'd've been clicking around in FWR threads to find the ones you're talking about. Now I'm rarely interested. Is this a good thing or bad?

And a current thread with its Jordan P follower names put me in mind of the greek right of passage.

Interesting.

Another PBP back and already deleted. There are some innocuous posts standing on threads, but the “I’m a v young new GC first post” thread disappeared in a flash.

If they were looking for screenshots it would have been a poor harvest. We were just worried about them being on social media.

But seriously - who has the bloody time to make up such boring crap on the t’internet. It’s honestly never crossed my mind to troll ummm where ever these people hang out to chat.

“I’m a v young new GC first post” thread disappeared in a flash.

I was surprised it was up for as long as it was.

Child safeguarding involves not encouraging tweens and young teens to contribute to adult forums, even if they actually are tween or young teen (which, hereabouts, they usually aren't).

Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh I need to step away from the keyboard - my head is hurting

I just saw an update on Bunbur's twitter feed. It said:

"beware of those with names whose top results when googled lead to the type of online environment where furred-people (to be PC) may congregate"

"or at a push, those with names that can easily be photoshopped"

I didn't know dearest Bunbury has her own twitter feed and (doubtless) other social media platform presence.

I see things have been a bit lively on the deletion front but didn't see then in time to assess whether this was for community disruption activity or 'not in the spirit.'

Not quite Bunbury but not worth starting a thread over.

Have a look at the recent threads in this topic: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/lgbt_children.

Bunbury is not surprised that there are additional disruption attempts now that some sensible revisions have been made to FWR-specific T&Cs.

Would that be the Current Bunbury? It really seems to be sticking in some people's craw

I doubt Bunbury is surprised that the 'who dresses like this thread' is about to disappear.

Several disuptors rather than good faith discussants seem to have found a forum ripe for disruption.

I'm annoyed that thread went. I didn't see a post actually generalising about all TW. Perhaps I missed it but I'm pretty sure someone just decided someone had said that to suit their own ends.

The post making that generalisation was from someone who objected to the thread as a whole. They will have been very pleased with their work.

Weekend moderation is the most special.

Threads about people's appearances don't seem to fare well.

Threads about people's appearances don't seem to fare well.

Difficult to understand why starting a thread with the intention of ridiculing someone's appearance might not go down well with the mods.

I missed whether you answered my question on the deleted thread about why you spend so much time on Mumsnet Snowblight, given you think its "true nature" is so horrible?

Could be spin on those balls?

Ahh, yes, I wondered if they be spinning in a familiar way.

Women criticise the appearance of other women all the time* so it does surprise me slightly that we're not allowed to validate transwomen by criticising their appearance 'just like any other woman'.

• When I use the phrase 'all the time', I don't mean it literally and I don't think every single woman spends every single minute being critical. Just for clarification. Phew.

Are we to understand from the deletion notice that MNHQ disagrees with Stonewall UK on the proper definition of transgender people?

Or MNHQ agrees with a monitor who disagrees with Stonewall UK on the proper definition of transgender people.

I’m sure that makes someone somewhere a grass product or something.

More will probably help.

I promise I'm not...

Ah, remember when that was a popular trope among some persistent disruptors?

Memory lane on a certain thread today...