How to have an open discussion when there are people determined to shut it down?

[Believerinbiology]

I'm sure many will recognised the many tactics for shutting down discussions on these boards e.g. the ploppers posting for screenshots or deletions, targeted mass reporting of particular posters who speak sense, derailing etc. I, like many here, don't generally report posts as prefer to leave posts stand for sunlight and so what was deleted cannot be misrepresented. I'm struggling with what is the best way to deal with derailers or those who superficially seem to be engaging in the discussion but actually are shutting it down. As one poster said when it becomes a back and forth between a couple of posters most will leave the discussion. If nobody refutes their points it can be spun that we agree/ don't have an argument against it/ are an echo chamber that won't engage with other viewpoints but if they are refuted the derailing back and forth occurs. What is the best way to handle this (other than screaming in frustration)?

I've seen on here before that one way to deal is to just ignore the derailer and continue the discussion by quoting / engaging with another poster further back up the thread who is actually discussing what the thread's about.

Suggest they start their own thread to continue the deraily discussion there instead?

It's a shame when developments in a thread can get buried under pages of back-and-forth which isn't really what the original thread was about.

Keep on point.

I think most derailers are not interested in debate at all, and best ignored. Don’t engage and keep what was the point of the thread.

Yes there are certainly some posts who while I may read what is said I'll never engage with but there are some whose MO is a bit subtler until you see it across a few threads. The ones in particular I'm thinking of are those that start by seemingly engaging with the thread in good faith and so have drawn posters into a discussion but their posts gradually change over the course of the discussion twisting it to their own objective. Must sit on my hands more.

I'm sometimes guilty of trying to get a straight answer to an extremely basic question from people that are just there to make noise rather than engage. (sorry).

We used to have a great guide to avoiding this - the problem is it sort of requires everyone in a thread to ignore them.

Best bet is to go back to the last few posts before the derail and quote/respond to those to get it back on track.
Or instead of @-ing or quoting the derailer directly, say 'some people claim that X which is incorrect because YZ' etc.

Doggedly responding to the actual OP rather than getting distracted is good. You can report repeated derailers as it's not in the spirit/not civil discussion to come onto a thread and drive everyone off it - if you explain in your post report that you don't want it deleted but that the poster is displaying a pattern of behaviour that is pretty much trolling, MNHQ are often sympathetic or at least on alert.

I recommend the OP and thread here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4164702-Bunbury-s-Eighth-Sealion-training-for-beginners

In fact, I'll copy the OP for ease of keeping track....

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.

Remember our monitors would like to silence us by fair means or foul.

This is a continuation of the Public Service Announcement thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3691023-Bunburys-guide-to-community-disruptors-part-4

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

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 always have 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 ‘Break it Down for me’ and ‘It never happens’ threads 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.”

Yup I have been muttering remember Bunbury a lot to myself lately while resisting posting, even went to get myself a drink but everybody was still off on summer holidays. It can be so hard to leave statements and misinformation stand without comment though.

Yeah, I agree, ignore the derail comments.

There are discussions that are back and forth, IMO, that are not derails, they are just the way the discussion goes.

But when you see certain types of comments, often that really are not what the thread is about, it's often best to ignore them, or maybe direct them to a different thread - it only takes one person to do that.

Often what I notice is people will turn up and talk about something like toilet access etc which is not what the discussion is about. It's usually clear in a few posts that it is a derail.

Everyone else can just keep on topic and ignore the comment.

It's honestly ridiculous and disheartening isn't it. This thread is aimed at me I have little doubt about that.

It's like "how do we pretend this place isn't an echo chamber while ensuring it actually is".

Just because you don't agree, doesn't make something derailing.

Some people may incorrectly say that derailing is the same thing as presenting an opposing argument for discussion.

Obviously, most adults are capable of discerning the difference.

You can tell who the derailers are - one giveaway is when they're asked to clarify a point they have tried to make and they can't answer or re-word the question to something else.

I haven't seen any particular thread that this is ostensibly about, but I think it's a good standalone discussion topic, so would be good if it could be kept like that rather than be dragged into a TAAT in order to get it deleted (another longstanding tactic of dedicated derailers).

Surely this thread is about derailing tactics, not dissenting arguments? There's a big difference between the two and I don't think posters who haven't got the courtesy to stay on topic are entitled to the courtesy of a reply.

I've think I've read the thread you're referring to Dreamwhisper although I didn't post on it. I thought it was a full blooded but respectful discussion and I'm surprised to see you characterise it in that way.

One persons “derail” is another’s pertinent point, or interesting addition. In all conversations there are people you don’t agree with, or who take things in a direction that doesn’t interest you. Either post what you want to talk about and if others do too, they will answer or accept the thread isn’t the discussion you were look for and leave it to those that are enjoying the interaction. Anything else seems tediously controlling.

Obviously discussions go on tangents.
Again, it's the ones that can't even clarify what they are saying to avoid misunderstanding, and/or change the subject to "what people who post on FWR are like". Basically just sticking fingers in ears and name-calling.

I've been on FWR a long time and this is a very specific type of poster, who always plays out the same way. It's different from robust debate - actually putting a point across and trying to find common ground as well as the specific points you disagree on (e.g. 'i think lowering the risk of covid by x% is worth wearing a mask on the train' vs 'i find masks so uncomfortable I'm willing to live with the increased risk of infection' as a made-up example. Whereas derailing is 'i think it's a net benefit to wear a mask on the train' vs 'you're a blind sheep who believes everything you're told and I bet you loved lockdown rules and killing pensioners, here's a YouTube I saw about it')

But why try to control their input. By all means read it thinking “yawn” or “arse” or whatever but you don’t need to do anything about it. It’s just like the item you don’t like on a plate of food.

If a post leads away from the topic under discussion, replying to it would derail the debate still further. Everyone is welcome go start a thread on the topic they want to discuss. Do have a go!

There are a handful of repeat visitors to FWR who take great joy in popping up in threads to bring up the same question that has been done to death a billion times already

I don’t think you’re in that group Dream

I can honestly say it's not about you Dreamwhisper...I don't even think you've posted on the threads I'm talking about. I have no issue with listening to opposing opinions and yes sometimes think what an arse and scroll on bit that's not what I mean. I'm really struggling to find a way to describe the behaviour and it's difficult to find a suitable analogy that does not point directly to certain threads or else could be seen as minimising victims experiences.

Why are you reluctant to give examples? Is it “talk guidelines” or are you just not sure if you are right in your summation of their input?

I'll give another example. It's what "trolling" originally meant in the early days of the internet - dropping a "contribution" so stupidly wrong that everyone just posts in reply to correct or argue with that particular, unrelated, point , and the original topic gets lost in the bunfight, while the troll just sits back and watches the outrage unfold, occasionally popping in to stir with another deliberately disingenuous post.

So, if the OP was "in my specific circumstances, is my DP being unreasonable to go to the gym 5x per week', the derailer might say "studies show that men his age actually need the endorphins from exercise to stave off cancer, but as usual all the "feminists" on here actively want men to get ill so they can control their pension".

Thread derailed as people ask for the studies (if the poster was genuine, they'd cite them). This thread is basically a plea to others to avoid the trap. The phrase "don't feed the trolls" was coined for this reason - people despair of good discussion being abandoned.

Ah alright fair enough 😊

Yeah, a point someone disagrees with is totally different than a derail. Occasionally you will see some disagreement on something like that, but usually it's pretty clear.

The most common by far is when you have a discussion about something fairly meaty or nuanced, say like AGP, or children's education - though often it is about something that looks particularly bad for TRAs, like medical malpractice - and you will get someone come in and say something about just wanting to use toilets in peace, or something similar, and will get into the weeds of a totally different discussion. Typically the poster is making a lot of claims and short statements that fill up the thread and make it difficult to read.

Tangents are a different story, and I do think that if it begins to swamp the main discussion, if that is still on-going, it can be legitimate to ask people to start a new thread on the topic so the original discussion can carry on. It's not always necessary though.

It's like "how do we pretend this place isn't an echo chamber while ensuring it actually is"

Women respond to TRA posts: echo chamber.

Women ignore TRA posts: also echo chamber.

🤔

Another difference between people who are there to derail and those with genuine opposing viewpoints - the derailers will often absolutely refuse to concede any shared ground or agreement with anything "the GCs" believe. Or if they do, they have to caveat it, usually with some kind of defensive accusation. Eg "do you agree that same-sex attraction is valid?" might get completely ignored, or responded to with "yes I think same-sex attraction is valid but people can still be sexual racists by excluding one sex from their dating pool".
People who are engaging generally try to find common ground and unpick where they disagree, or at least try to set out their argument logically.

I enjoy reading people who are arguing in good faith and genuinely trying to persuade me to reconsider my position. That is partly the point of spending time here. To read intelligent posts which are challenging to my current perspectives. Mumsnet is great for that because it really isn’t an echo chamber. I visit Ovarit and Spinster too, both of which are more in the vein of echo chambers, they serve different purposes than Mumsnet.

Those who come to FWR to play the game of seeing if they can incite anger or distress in other posters, those who get a kick out of eliciting a reaction from unknown others on the internet, the attention seekers who love to derail and then dominate the thread, the ones who want to prevent the discussion of important topics by derailing those threads. Those are all best treated by reference to Bunbury.

It used to be when the current Bunbury thread appeared at the top of the list of threads we’d know a poster like that had appeared on a significant thread.