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.

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.

^^

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?

"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. ;)

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.


About a religion? Ignorance. About the followers of a religion? Racism.

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."

Yes, but surely only because the set of moderators is restricted to members of FT...

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

:confused: Responding? How about starting topics with ROP in the Title?

I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Again, I don't have the final say on that matter, but IMO your are incorrect. IMO both are clearly violations of FT TOS.

Yes, me and millions of others, I would imagine (including many Muslims who have described their own religion using those very words).

It's one thing to use a term that is descriptive in nature (as in your example), orr perhaps even as a pejorative. It's an entirely different thing to use a term in direct response to and as a comment on/personal attack against another poster (as in my example).

So I guess maybe I've been mistaken. Are the "TOS" different from the "FAQ" that are provided as a link (directly to the right of "MyFlyerTalk") on the top of every page? If there are other terms of service, could someone please provide a link to them? I've been working under the (possibly incorrect) assumption that the TOS are covered as part of the FAQ.

With that in mind, I did a search of the FAQ for "troll" and "flame". The only match that was found was for "flame" and is as follows:

From this, I can only conclude that since "troll" isn't even mentioned, then trolling is not specifically prohibited. The reference to "flame" refers to and objective of having a flame-free community. Thus, I can conclude that "flaming" is discouraged. However, there is no mention of being a "flame-bait-free" community.

So, it seems to me that one is free to bait, but if someone were to take that bait and respond with a flame, the response is what would trigger a TOS violation.

Do we have yet another example of feigned indignation and imagined personal attacks where there are none?

Some people get confused easily and others want to confuse the issue to further their agenda. Either way, not all are blinded by a veil. :D

And are you using it as a perjorative most of the time as viewed in the opinion of some?

Irrelevant. I'm not directing it, in the form of a veiled personal attack, att any specific FTer.

As the great Ronald Reagan once said, "Well, there you go again!". Clearly your reply ("some people") was directed not at "some people" but at me personally. Excellent example of the tactica that I mentioned.

:(

I would be happy to answer this though I see that others have offered up their own thoughts as well.

In the context you have displayed I personally do not think they represent a 'personal attack.' Rather they represent a general opinion about a particular topic. And usually when these sort of generalization comments are made, they aren't even considered defensible. For instance, it's fairly difficult to believe that a member posting "I think TSA Screeners are thugs" would want that sole comment in their profile.

I've seen this type of "personal attack" defense as well. It most often seems to come from one of our members who runs a travel Website for bidding, a la Priceline. Many members here often criticize this persons business practices, etc and I often get an email, including a letter from this person's lawyer (yes, believe it) complaining how I allow members to violate the personal attack policy in regard to this member. I have on many more than one occasion repeated that in my opinion, members were not attacking this member as a member, but rather as an owner of a public Web site. It had nothing to do with this member's posts or opinions on FlyerTalk, rather their actions in the performance of their responsibilities as an owner of that Web site. Well, to this day, I don't think they get that part.

A personal attack, and even a veiled attack are when a member deliberately goes out of their way to make issue with the opinion or POV of another member in a way that is personal. Hard to define, sometimes even harder to point out. But saying "I don't think you get it" is really not a personal attack. However, saying "Because of your opnion I think you are a flaming *******" is a personal attack. The preffered response would be something like "that's an opinion I just can't buy in to. Any particular point that has caused you to think that way?" Or, "It appears you and I are miles apart on this issue."

Since the question was directed to me and I've answered, I guess that's the end of this little discussion. It looks like we both agree on this issue CameraGuy, and BTW, Happy New Year.