Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Community > Only Randy Petersen
Reload this Page >

Definition of "Personal Attack"

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Definition of "Personal Attack"

 
Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 23, 2004 | 9:59 pm
  #16  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 44,555
Originally Posted by Analise
I'm surprised that you would be saying that, anonplz. Being offensive to somebody's career isn't seen as a personal attack by you? I'm amazed you see it that way. Dov's remarks above show at least to me that classifying something offensive to a class/group of people is attacking them on a personal level.
Absolutely not. And, in turn, I'm really surprised that you don't understand the difference between insulting a group and insulting (attacking) a person? Either that, or I woke up in la-la-land this morning... People everywhere say bad things about groups of which we are members.

Originally Posted by Analise
Nevertheless, offensive remarks go against the TOS so even if we disagree, the fact remains that we shouldn't see any of it in FT.
^^
anonplz is offline  
Old Dec 23, 2004 | 10:41 pm
  #17  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Community Builder
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 57,030
On a slightly different tack, I thought a thread about a specific FTer was supposed to be a no-no. Is it against TOS to single out one specific board participant for ridicule?
tcook052 is offline  
Old Dec 23, 2004 | 11:05 pm
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: FTFOE
Programs: TalkBoard: We discuss / ad nauseum things that mean / so very little
Posts: 10,225
Originally Posted by Dovster
All these are personal attacks, even without the "you". True, there are some miserly Jews, some perverted Gays, and some lazy Blacks, but as soon as you say that every member of a particular group has a negative characteristic it becomes personal.
"The moderators are unfair."

FewMiles..
FewMiles is offline  
Old Dec 24, 2004 | 6:36 am
  #19  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by FewMiles
"The moderators are unfair."

FewMiles..
Unfortunately, unlike accusations of libel and slander, just because the statement is true, it doesn't absolve you of your TOS violiation.
DevilBucsFlyer is offline  
Old Dec 24, 2004 | 6:44 am
  #20  
20 Countries Visited30 Countries Visited40 Countries Visited20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,135
Originally Posted by DevilBucsFlyer
Are jewish people considered to be a "race" of people, or is it a religion?
Jewish people may be considered a race. Judaism is a religion. A "race" is not just about colour. It's about culture, religion and shared values.

See:

racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)]
n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]


and

race
n 1: A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2: A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3: A genealogical line; a lineage.
4: Humans considered as a group.



Originally Posted by DevilBucsFlyer
What's the word for generalities about a religion?
About a religion? Ignorance. About the followers of a religion? Racism.

Last edited by Wingnut; Dec 24, 2004 at 6:54 am
Wingnut is offline  
Old Dec 24, 2004 | 9:47 am
  #21  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, In Memoriam
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 69,201
Originally Posted by FewMiles
"The moderators are unfair."

FewMiles..
Few Miles is absolutely right. This statement would be a personal attack. It would stand in opposition to "some moderators are unfair" or "while most moderators do their jobs very well, there are some who do not."
Dovster is offline  
Old Dec 24, 2004 | 6:09 pm
  #22  
20 Countries Visited30 Countries Visited40 Countries Visited20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,135
Originally Posted by Dovster
This statement would be a personal attack.
Yes, but surely only because the set of moderators is restricted to members of FT...
Wingnut is offline  
Old Dec 24, 2004 | 6:40 pm
  #23  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 44,555
Originally Posted by Dovster
Few Miles is absolutely right. This statement would be a personal attack. It would stand in opposition to "some moderators are unfair" or "while most moderators do their jobs very well, there are some who do not."
Okay, so let's say we agree that attacking a group of people is personally attacking each individual member (FTR, we don't agree, but for the sake of argument...). What is the usefulness of this fact?? You then have to time out people who say, "people suck" or "Europeans smell bad." Where are you drawing lines and is that arbitrary or based on common sense? I mean, on a board as big and diverse as this one, few members are going to be Stepford Wives. People make generalizations about all sorts of people.
anonplz is offline  
Old Dec 25, 2004 | 12:05 am
  #24  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, In Memoriam
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 69,201
Originally Posted by anonplz
Okay, so let's say we agree that attacking a group of people is personally attacking each individual member (FTR, we don't agree, but for the sake of argument...). What is the usefulness of this fact?? You then have to time out people who say, "people suck" or "Europeans smell bad." Where are you drawing lines and is that arbitrary or based on common sense? I mean, on a board as big and diverse as this one, few members are going to be Stepford Wives. People make generalizations about all sorts of people.
I would suggest we take one of two very different paths:

1. Allow all personal attacks, especially those based on prejudiced against any group. As I have said elsewhere, people who reveal themselves as bigots hurt their own reputations much more than they hurt those they have offended.

OR

2. Draw the line anywhere that a F/Ter has expressed an objection to an attack on a group of which he is a member.

Let's take Few Miles' example of "The moderators are unfair."

If I were to make that statement, lumping all moderators together and attributing the worst attributes of a few to the group as a whole, almost every FlyerTalker would not only object but would consider me to be a fool. Most of us have had very good experiences with various moderators and quite a few of us count a number of moderators among our personal friends.

Hence, making this attack would draw a lot of fire and almost no support. (Again, as opposed to objecting to the actions of a few moderators whose actions reflect badly on all of them.)

If we decide to go to the second possibility I mentioned, the first such statement would be allowable but once any moderator objected, saying "I consider an attack upon all moderators as an attack on me, individually" then it would no longer be allowed.
Dovster is offline  
Old Dec 29, 2004 | 10:51 am
  #25  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Programs: HH Diamond, SPG Gold, PC Platinum Ambassador, Marriott Silver
Posts: 15,249
Thumbs down

Here is a variation on the theme - - a tactic used repeatedly by a few select posters: Skirt the "no personal attacks" rule by making a (sometimes) veiled but disparaging remark about a larger group of people. See the following exchange at posts 31 & 32 of this thread:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=373876

'You lost me on that one."

"Why is it that the far right always gets confused by simple facts?"

If it isn't an ad hominem or personal attack, then it most certainly is flame baiting.
cactuspete is offline  
Old Dec 29, 2004 | 12:01 pm
  #26  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Community Builder
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 57,030
O.K., pete, gotta ask the question and forgive me if it's obtuse, but are there different rules for OMNI versus the rest of the FT world? I will admit to never having set foot in OMNI and that's why I ask.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Dec 29, 2004 | 12:26 pm
  #27  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by cactuspete
Here is a variation on the theme - - a tactic used repeatedly by a few select posters: Skirt the "no personal attacks" rule by making a (sometimes) veiled but disparaging remark about a larger group of people. See the following exchange at posts 31 & 32 of this thread:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=373876

'You lost me on that one."

"Why is it that the far right always gets confused by simple facts?"

If it isn't an ad hominem or personal attack, then it most certainly is flame baiting.
Aha... see, that's where we get tricky. AFAIK, flame baiting is not a TOS violation; neither is trolling.

Of course, any of those could be captured under the "disruptive behavior" clause. But, anything (such as posting that "Delta Sucks" in the Delta Forum) could be considered "disruptive" if a moderator were so inclined as to define it as "disruptive".
DevilBucsFlyer is offline  
Old Dec 29, 2004 | 1:28 pm
  #28  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador: World of Hyatt
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Jersey
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, Fairmont Lifetime Plat, UA Silver, dirt elsewhere
Posts: 47,401
Originally Posted by cactuspete
Here is a variation on the theme - - a tactic used repeatedly by a few select posters: Skirt the "no personal attacks" rule by making a (sometimes) veiled but disparaging remark about a larger group of people. See the following exchange at posts 31 & 32 of this thread:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=373876

'You lost me on that one."

"Why is it that the far right always gets confused by simple facts?"

If it isn't an ad hominem or personal attack, then it most certainly is flame baiting.
Pete - with all due respect... Isn't it you that refers to a "larger group of people" as followers of the ROP (religion of peace)?

I could be wrong about that, and if so, I apologize & will edit. But I don't think I am.

In this case, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry.

Mary
Mary2e is offline  
Old Dec 29, 2004 | 2:25 pm
  #29  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by Mary2e
In this case, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry.

Mary
Oops. Actually not.

Responding to a personal attack is an equal violation of the TOS to actually making a personal attack in the first place.
DevilBucsFlyer is offline  
Old Dec 29, 2004 | 3:55 pm
  #30  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador: World of Hyatt
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Jersey
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, Fairmont Lifetime Plat, UA Silver, dirt elsewhere
Posts: 47,401
Responding? How about starting topics with ROP in the Title?
Mary2e is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.