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.”

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

I'm not convinced by this at all, having seen threads started purely for that purpose, full on trolling (hating on people in the public eye). Really ugly viewing, yet, it stands. MN support such threads. Someone at MN likes to watch people being ridiculed, for their appearance. Its pretty abhorrent frankly, but it stands nevertheless.

If that isn't incivility idk what is!

Being civil has been a basic tenet of many of MN deletions. Yet?

Being civil has been a basic tenet of many of MN deletions. Yet

99% of social/ media content across all platforms consists of people talking about, referring to, analysing, discussing, and generally being quite nasty about people. This forum is positively benign in comparison.It means the standard of debate and discussion here is far superior to what you'll find elsewhere.

As you suggest - there are multiple threads elsewhere on MN which discuss celebrities and other people......

My comment was a direct response to Snow because I wasn't convinced by it at all.

I was also making the point of duplicity or deletion reasons.

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me there, as they're not issues I referenced.

I wasn't comparing sites, commenting in SM in general or holding up MN as something, just disagreeing with the complex and changeable 'rules'

As you suggest - there are multiple threads elsewhere on MN which discuss celebrities and other people......

There's a difference in terms of motivation between someone taking the piss out of, say, Will Smith because they don't like Will Smith and someone taking the piss out of him because he's black. Most of the 'ridicule' threads aimed at trans people fall into the category of purely taking the piss because they're trans.

This is exactly where I disagreed and why I said so. The threads in question were all about the looks, peoples facial features being ridiculed, their appearance yet they stand, despite many reporting them, taken down then reinstated.

Yet one mention of appearance of anyone trans is taken down as incivility.

I wasn't taking about racism. I was talking about anyone being ridiculed for their appearance, MNs rules seem to says its fair game unless trans.

Many posts weren't taking the piss out of this person. They were pointing to an issue for women.

Many posts weren't taking the piss out of this person. They were pointing to an issue for women.

Many weren't but many were and the thread itself began with a 'look at this ridiculous person...' type of slant.

Trying to equate with racism is always a massive giveaway and never makes any sense.

Must try harder.

I've seen a lot of threads where it feels like snow's only incentive for posting is to police women. Just an observation.

Snow, under the username snowblight at least, has never given any opinion or thought or argument. From my observation, they’ve never actually set out their stall at all.

It’s seems their raison d'etre, on MN under the username snowblight at least, is to criticise, condemn, and complain.

My 2 pence worth. Obviously if I’ve misrepresented Snow, I’ll apologise unreservedly.

Trying to equate with racism is always a massive giveaway and never makes any sense
How can you say it doesn't make any sense? Do you seriously not see what the poster upthread was saying - that it wouldn't be OK to pull apart peoples looks just for being black, just like it's not OK to pull apart people's looks just for being trans?

Was this thread about the "What 40 year old woman dresses like this?" as yeah, I saw that on trending now - as being a 40 cough something I was curious as to WTF I was being told we women shouldn't be wearing or look stupid in now (then head desked when realised had been sucked into another trans thread lol)

OMG WotchaTalkinBoutWillis transphobic much!

You need to check yourself.

*Many weren't but many were and the thread itself began with a 'look at this ridiculous person...' type of slant&

That this is your take on it, says more about you, I'd suggest. that perhaps you don't understand the difference between analysis and observation and name calling and abuse. They are not the same thing at all.

My thread ( that was deleted in its entirety entirety) was not set up to " look at this ridiculous person" ( 'ridiculous' is your wording) but to look at, analyse and discuss gendered performances - especially as they relate to people who identify as trans. Big deal!

You need to grow a thicker skin.

But would it be OK to "pull apart" the looks of somebody who happened to be black (although I dislike the idea of white as the default) or who happened to be trans, if the way they chose to present themselves allowed one to make a very obvious inference that they might have an additional characteristic under the Stonewall umberella, as well as / instead of the one they purported to have?

I thought it was odd that the thread about "what 40 year old woman would dress like this?" appeared in "Trending Now" top right of the screen (on laptop not phone).
Usually FWR threads don't appear there, for reasons.
This one did though. Just a glitch?

Utter lies, snowblight. You took the opportunity to push your agenda in a way that meant you could go for deletion.

I am a 40 something woman and, as I said on the thread, I don't style myself on Nurse Joy (google her) for a night out on the town and I find it a strange representation of womanhood for any middle aged person. If I had written about a female going out dressed like that, the thread would have remained.

Anyway, this thread is not the place to continue the debate. If you aren't happy on MN, don't use it. You only post on this board so you're clearly only here for one reason.

OMG WotchaTalkinBoutWillis transphobic much!

You what lol
Read my post properly, I was talking about ME being interested as a 40 something woman being told what I should or shouldn't wear, your head construes that as me being transphobic about myself WTAF lol
Oooooky, Alrighty then

Do you actually lol, Willis, every time you type lol?

I doubt wotcha is even aware of the kind of outfit being referred to. I look forward to wotcha posting pictures of themself in something similar.

Do you actually lol, Willis, every time you type lol?

I actually did do a proper lol, then yes at the sheer whatthefuckitywhatnow? nature of the comment

Just googled Nurse Joy.
Looks like a cosplay character? The way people were reacting I was expecting something x-rated and was a little scared to google!
Can totally see that being a night out outfit, something say a group of people in a hen do might wear or something.

OMG lol Willis you’re the lolz and a little transphobic 🙈

You said “What 40 year old woman dresses like this?” as yeah, I saw that on trending now - as being a 40 cough something I was curious as to WTF I was being told we women shouldn't be wearing or look stupid in now (then head desked when realised had been sucked into another trans thread lol)”

So are you saying there’s a difference for you between what women and trans women wear?!? I mean lol really?

I’m sure you can clear up my misunderstanding. 🙏

The 'holy grail' of inter-sectionalist politics is being 'of colour' and 'being trans'. the supposedly most oppressed, hence the most privileged and immune from any comment, analysis or criticism.

Comparisons with 'racism' are always being drawn, as if by just saying the word 'racism', a talisman is created from which everyone is meant to automatically backs away and back down.

Thing is I've never seen, nor can I imagine anyone on this forum ever criticising or analysing someone's appearance "just because they are black".

But if a particular black person in the public eye was putting on a display of supposed 'whiteness'; or if a white person in the public eye was putting on a show of supposed 'blackness' - then i would suggest that performance and show was inherently suitable material for analysis.

Same with a man putting on a gendered performance of supposed femininity or femaleness; and vice versa - a woman or female putting on a gendered performance of 'masculinity'.

It wasn't a hen night or a cosplay night, wotcha. That was kind of my point.