Definition of "Personal Attack"
 

Randy,

Would you please clarify what is deemed a "Personal Attack"?

Is it a "Personal Attack" to state that an airlines F/A's are lazy?
Is it a "Personal Attack" to state that an airlines Pilots are greedy?
Is it a "Personal Attack" to state that Frequent Flyers are spoiled?
Is it a "Personal Attack" to state that TSA Screeners are thugs?
Is it a "Personal Attack" to state that a hotel chains front desk clerks are poorly trained?

I have seen the above statements made on FT MANY times and do not think that any of the above are "Personal Attacks". However, lately I have seen members complain that since they are an employee in the mentioned broad category, that said statement is a personal attack. I disagree. In my opinion, a "Personal Attack" is exactly as stated, it is an attack on a singular member.

Thanks in adavnce for your comments on this issue.

While we're getting definitions, can we add a definition of "veiled personal attack" to the mix?

Sounds like the question was asked to know a veil.

Doh! :eek: :o :p :cool: :D ^

"Some FAs are idiots" is not a personal attack.

"FA's are idiots" is a personal attack on any FA reading it.

While it is a personal attack, it is deemed as perfectly acceptable on FT - so long as no single FT member is singled out.

Using that guideline, none of the examples mentioned by CameraGuy are considered personal attacks under FT's rules. Unless said attack is deemed to be offensive or repugnant to politically correct speech codes, it doesn't count if it's directed at no one in particular (despite the fact that several FT members may be personally offended).

Mike

Any while we are at it...my personal favorite - ad hominem. :)

Haven't seen that one for a while actually. :D

No, neither of those examples is a personal attack.

A personal attack must be personal; it must attack someone personally, by name, or by use of "you" in response to someone's post.

An FA may find "FA's are idiots" offensive, but it is not a personal attack. I may find "New Yorkers are idiots" offensive, but that is not a personal attack. Someone could post "People suck," does that make it a personal attack?

"Jews are misers."

"Gays are perverts."

"Blacks are lazy."

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.

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. 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.

See, that's the problem that I have with trying to define a personal attack. It seems that semantics are more important that intent.

For example, assume that I disagree with Anonplz's post.

I could respond:

Anonplz, you're just stupid. The use of the word "you" has no bearing on whether an attack is personal or not. If you think that, you must have mush for brains"

Or, I could respond:

"The position taken by the poster in the quoted reference is just stupid. The use of the word "you" has no bearing on whether an attack is person or not. If a person were to think that, that person must have mush for brains"

IMHO, there is absolutely no difference in the intent of the two above responses. But, some Flyertalkers and moderators seem to get bent out of shape by posts like the first response. But see nothing wrong with posts like the second response. In my opinion, people who see these responses in that way have mush for brains.


Please note, the two examples give were for discussion purposes only. In no way should they be read to say that Anonplz, or any other Flyertalker, has mush for brains.

I'm a little drunk, and I'm sure I'm going to regret getting into exactly the kind of thread I'd avoid like the plague when sober, but I'm not convinced the examples you cite would count as personal. Two of them are racist, and the other homophobic, and I'd agree that they have no place on these boards, but surely the very essence of racism and homophobia is that they're generic, not personal. Thus not a personal attack. Rather a generic (and, indeed, ignorant) attack. Unless, of course, posted in response or reference to someone the poster believed to be a member of one of the aforementioned groups, in which case personal.

Anyway. Enough with the meta-thread. Back to the OT.

See now, a generality about black people is racist, and a generality about gay people is homophobic. But is a comment about jewish people also racist? You mentioned that 2 of the statemens were racist. Are jewish people considered to be a "race" of people, or is it a religion? What's the word for generalities about a religion? I think that would fit better than calling it a racist statement.

Setting aside my quibble that you failed to insert "all" in front of your statements (leaving them ambiguous), it's still not a personal attack. If it's anti-semitic or racist or homophobic, it doesn't belong on FT, but not belonging on FT doesn't make it a personal attack. If the world of what doesn't belong on FT or is disallowed (as personal attacks are) can be seen as a big pie, the portion of that pie which is personal attacks is some portion less than 100%. Say, for example, that portion is 25%, then 75% of the pie is things like racist statements, homophobic statements, anti-semitic statements, things like posting to the board personal information about other members without their permission, etc.

I suppose if you get down to splitting hairs, you can make "stop" mean "go", and perhaps that's what I'm doing here; who knows, but to me, remarks insulting a class of people can never be personal attacks. They can get you permanently banned, for sure. But they can't be considered personal attacks (IMO). Though you can personally take offense, if you so choose.

Anyway, that's what I think.