What constitutes a personal attack?

[tragula]

I wanted to talk about this issue from a semantic perspective. How does someone draw the line between debating a point and criticizing someone personally? Does such a line actually exist? And are there any significant loopholes?

The English language is certainly flexible and subtle. Phrases like "some people" can be used as cover for criticizing someone. But what if everyone knows who you are referring too? What about the role of humor and sarcasm in criticizing people? To what extent does "intent" factor in over the pure mechanics of the language? What about someone's tone of voice?

I would strongly suggest keeping the discussion abstract. Any examples could simply be given with imaginary people Alpha1, Beta1, and Theta1.

I don't think this really belongs in rants and raves necessarily, but I didn't know where else to put it.

[Shai Gar]

i disagree that that pathetic idiotic idea/concept/position - non pa
you are a worthless faggot - personal attack

[Claverhouse]

But... people will immediately identify themselves as Alpha1. You're talking about me.

One can just address the issues, resolutely ignoring the personas of your adversaries. Just stick the knife in so they don't notice it until they sneeze.



Claverhouse

[Lee]

It is usually dependent on whether the "attacker" addresses the issue or addresses the competency of the poster. Resorting to tactics such as "your just a NF" or "you always talk nonsense" etc. Sometimes I think people hold thier theories or ideas to close to themselves and fail to differentiate between the two and thus take offense where none is intended.

[tragula]

i disagree that that pathetic idiotic idea/concept/position - non pa
you are a worthless faggot - personal attack


What if someone had an idea about constructing a real airplane out of paperclips and scotch tape.

Would criticising that idea as idiotic really be a personal attack?

To a certain extent I think what you are saying is that there are loaded words that lend themselves to being taken personally. Like "idiotic" or "pathetic". And perhaps there is some truth to that.... because to some extent those words do refer back to a person, in the way that a word like "ludicrous" does not.

[mgb]

It's really all context though isn't it?

It's not so much the words you use, but how you use them. You can call an idea ludicrous, but you are really calling the person putting forward the idea ludicrous for doing it.

In a way, ideas are nothing but the products of a person.

[Shai Gar]

lee, that is what i said. but more succinctly.

and trag if a person wants to be hurt because it was revealed that the idea was a stupid one. so be it. however the person was not attacked directly, only their idea was.

and dont do it, scotchtape is not adhesive enough it would be stupid

[Shai Gar]

mgbradsh, i was told my idea about distorting matter was silly/stupid but i didnt get upset*, because i realised that they were talking about the idea i had not me personally. all it takes is to keep distance between all your ideas so that you can change them as nessescary(sp, i know i dont care to type backwards)


*though i may have if the person called me silly/stupid

[tragula]

It's really all context though isn't it?

It's not so much the words you use, but how you use them. You can call an idea ludicrous, but you are really calling the person putting forward the idea ludicrous for doing it.

In a way, ideas are nothing but the products of a person.

Hmm. "You are a ludicrous person." Kind of has a nice ring to it! :-) (I'm not directing that at anyone.)


Well. As a couple of people have stated, some people seem to take attacks on their ideas more personally than others. I thought taking those sorts of comments personally was supposed to be an F trait.

At a gathering dominated by SF types I have found that walking around on eggshells is strictly required... Or else.... :ph34r:

[MacGuffin]

Okay this is what I originally tried to post before I got the DNS message again:

If you can boil a person's statement down to "Alpha1 is a negative thing" instead of "Alpha1's idea/opinion is a negative thing" then it is a personal attack.

[mgb]

mgbradsh, i was told my idea about distorting matter was silly/stupid but i didnt get upset*, because i realised that they were talking about the idea i had not me personally. all it takes is to keep distance between all your ideas so that you can change them as nessescary(sp, i know i dont care to type backwards)


*though i may have if the person called me silly/stupid

Let's do it this way.

You say, "I have this great idea about blah blah blah."

You get two responses:

A. "You are an idiot for coming up with that."
B. "That idea is idiotic."

Either way you are an idiot, either because someone called you an idiot or because the idiotic idea came from you, making you an idiot as the father of that idea.

Also, the choice of words is a pedantic way to insult someone. The choice of words doesn't really matter. Ludicrous or idiot, it doesn't matter, it's the tone of what you are saying that matters.

The only way to not really insult them is to insult an idea that isn't theirs and they don't have a connection to.

For example, "Some people, not me, believe that blah blah blah."

You can say, that idea is idiotic without offending that person, but risk offending all the other people that do believe in it.

[mgb]

Hmm. "You are a ludicrous person." Kind of has a nice ring to it! :-) (I'm not directing that at anyone.)


Well. As a couple of people have stated, some people seem to take attacks on their ideas more personally than others. I thought taking those sorts of comments personally was supposed to be an F trait.

At a gathering dominated by SF types I have found that walking around on eggshells is strictly required... Or else.... :ph34r:

As T's I suppose we have a tendency to dismiss a comment about an idea. But since no one is 100% T, we all have some F, and maybe it's the F that associates the idea as a product of a person.

Maybe that makes no sense at all.

[MacGuffin]

Let's do it this way.

You say, "I have this great idea about blah blah blah."

You get two responses:

A. "You are an idiot for coming up with that."
B. "That idea is idiotic."

Either way you are an idiot, either because someone called you an idiot or because the idiotic idea came from you, making you an idiot as the father of that idea.
I disagree. I think the second response is not a personal attack. If someone takes it as a personal attack, that is their problem.

The most brilliant people in the world can have stupid ideas. Identifying them as stupid does not make the person stupid.

[mgb]

mgbradsh, i was told my idea about distorting matter was silly/stupid but i didnt get upset*, because i realised that they were talking about the idea i had not me personally. all it takes is to keep distance between all your ideas so that you can change them as nessescary(sp, i know i dont care to type backwards)


*though i may have if the person called me silly/stupid

But you obviously thought the idea was good enough to post here. How did you feel when the idea was trounced on? Did you defend the idea? Did you try and explain it better?

We all have a connection to the ideas we come up with.

I can't even say it's an F thing to be honest.

I read a story in my INTP research about Neils Bohr's troubled life because his ideas were criticized.

[Shai Gar]

ideas are ephemeral, why believe in them? ideas are great to think of, but sometimes you need to come back to earth to build a skyscraper

[mgb]

I disagree. I think the second response is not a personal attack. If someone takes it as a personal attack, that is their problem.

The most brilliant people in the world can have stupid ideas. Identifying them as stupid does not make the person stupid.

Do stupid people come up with smart ideas? What makes them stupid then?

I agree that people can have bad good and bad ideas without the person being considered either smart or stupid.

But I think there is a connection between a person and their idea. People don't just come up with ideas, let them out and then end all contact. We defend our ideas, we change them, market them.

[Shai Gar]

i was upset that the idea wouldnt work, that was it.

and i think all my ideas are good enough to be posted here

[Shai Gar]

a lack of ignorance and knowledge makes them lower on the mental scale. but only the knowledgably ignorant and those wishing to never ever learn are stupid

[MacGuffin]

Do stupid people come up with smart ideas? What makes them stupid then?
I'm sure you have heard the expression "every dog has its day".

If a "stupid" person continually comes up with smart ideas, they are obviously not stupid.

[crule81]

I'm sure you have heard the expression "every dog has its day".

If a "stupid" person continually comes up with smart ideas, they are obviously not stupid.

What about Forrest Gump?

[mgb]

What about Forrest Gump?

Stupid is as stupid does.
(yes got it first)

Which might have been what Shai Gar is saying. But is that a way of insulting someone with out it being an insult.

[MacGuffin]

What about Forrest Gump?
Forrest wasn't as stupid as many characters thought he was. But one has to differentiate between coming up with an idea and accidently stumbling into a situation.

[garak]

I can't help but think of the scene where jenny took off her shirt and he was totally freaking out. Man that was funny shit. :D [/completely and utterly OT]

[Shai Gar]

i think forest was a genius stuck in the body of a retard with retarded neural pathways

[indie]

ideas are great to think of, but sometimes you need to come back to earth to build a skyscraper

I like that statement. It's very true.

[Edmond Zedo]

*shrug* What kind of genius came up with that moronic rule? Only Obvious Outsider Trolls should be dealt with.

I'd rather have ten people a day call me a fucking idiot bastard than read ten posts a day that provoke no thought or are simply Wrong. Can't call them Wrong, though. That's not PC.

[mgb]

*shrug* What kind of genius came up with that moronic rule? Only Obvious Outsider Trolls should be dealt with.

I'd rather have ten people a day call me a fucking idiot bastard than read ten posts a day that provoke no thought or are simply Wrong. Can't call them Wrong, though. That's not PC.

I was being argumentative before. I agree with you on this.

I don't mind be wrong, happens all the time. I expect the same from others though.

[Shai Gar]

yep

[tragula]

*shrug* What kind of genius came up with that moronic rule? Only Obvious Outsider Trolls should be dealt with.

I'd rather have ten people a day call me a fucking idiot bastard than read ten posts a day that provoke no thought or are simply Wrong. Can't call them Wrong, though. That's not PC.


See this sounds like total nonsense to me. (Not a P.A.)

There are people all over this forum and in real life telling others that their ideas are Wrong, without anyone getting pissed off about it in the least.

The point is that calling someone a fucking idiot bastard is what tends to irritate the vast majority of people.

It's really curious how a few people honestly seem completely flipped on this.

[mgb]

See this sounds like total nonsense to me. (Not a P.A.)

There are people all over this forum and in real life telling others that their ideas are Wrong, without anyone getting pissed off about it in the least.

The point is that calling someone a fucking idiot bastard is what tends to irritate the vast majority of people.

It's really curious how a few people honestly seem completely flipped on this.

Are you looking for an answer to why people get offended or looking for the line which get crossed on the way to offending someone?

[MacGuffin]

I do agree that people can get attached to their ideas and if their ideas are attacked, then they feel attacked personally.

Much of it has to do with the way you attack an idea.

"I disagree for reasons X, Y, and Z" works much better than "That idea is fucking STUPID".

[booyalab]

I think what Zedo is saying is that the rest of us may engage in arguments with each other, but whenever he shows up we should make sure our viewpoints align with his exactly..or else drop them entirely.
About the first part of what he said, we should limit our posts to only statements that are original and cerebral, and of course Zedo needs to agree with them.

[mgb]

I do agree that people can get attached to their ideas and if their ideas are attacked, then they feel attacked personally.

Much of it has to do with the way you attack an idea.

"I disagree for reasons X, Y, and Z" works much better than "That idea is fucking STUPID".

I agree with that. But what if you re-arrange those statements and keep the message of both the same?

But if you say, "That is fucking stupid because of X, Y and Z."

At the most basic level, the criticism is the same, you are just being more polite. In some cases, I can find politeness to be more insulting.

[MacGuffin]

I agree with that. But what if you re-arrange those statements and keep the message of both the same?

But if you say, "That is fucking stupid because of X, Y and Z."

At the most basic level, the criticism is the same, you are just being more polite. In some cases, I can find politeness to be more insulting.
Politeness can sound like condescension sometimes.

I think that politeness is less likely to cause problems than going the "fucking stupid" route.

[Vagabond]

You could avoid insulting those that mind personal insults, simple as that... and no, personally I don't think that calling an idea stupid is the same as calling a person stupid. And yeah, I can insult someone appearing totally polite and not falling under any rule of political correctness... what is said and why it is said is more important than how it is said. (If you understood half of that last sentence, I am happy :D ).

Btw... wasn't Forrest Gump autistic...?

[mgb]

You could avoid insulting those that mind personal insults, simple as that... and no, personally I don't think that calling an idea stupid is the same as calling a person stupid. And yeah, I can insult someone appearing totally polite and not falling under any rule of political correctness... what is said and why it is said is more important than how it is said. (If you understood half of that last sentence, I am happy :D ).

Btw... wasn't Forrest Gump autistic...?

No. He was developmentally challenged, in that he had a low IQ in could not understand complicated connections very easily if at all.

I would call him retarded and lucky.

In the vein of not posting information and making others look it up themselves (http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-ch06.html)

Rainman was autistic, well an autistic cevant.

[mgb]

Politeness can sound like condescension sometimes.

I think that politeness is less likely to cause problems than going the "fucking stupid" route.

So I guess the line tragula is looking for (possibly) is contextual and doesn't really exist in a hard and fast way.

[Lee]

To feel offended you must generate an emotion within yourself, no comment is inherently offensive, the onus lies with the recipient on whether or not they wish to feel offended. The taking of offense is skewed by the individuals perspective of events.

[booyalab]

To feel offended you must generate an emotion within yourself, no comment is inherently offensive, the onus lies with the recipient on whether or not they wish to feel offended. The taking of offense is skewed by the individuals perspective of events.
pig!

[Lee]

pig!

So predictable, honestly I expected more from you....tut tut

[booyalab]

So predictable, honestly I expected more from you....tut tut

I expected more from me too, but hey, what are you gonna do? *denies you the satisfaction of offending me*

[Lee]

I expected more from me too, but hey, what are you gonna do? *denies you the satisfaction of offending me*

Thank you, we have an understanding.

[tragula]

Well, as I said before, people do have different standards for taking offense.
SF--takes offense at the drop of a hat.
NF--will take offense easily but cares more about your intention
ST--Either incredibly sensitive or incredibly insensitive depending on the day???
NT--Seems to take offense at direct insults only.

The above is my off the cuff interpretation....

[Edmond Zedo]

Well, as I said before, people do have different standards for taking offense.
SF--takes offense at the drop of a hat.
NF--will take offense easily but cares more about your intention
ST--Either incredibly sensitive or incredibly insensitive depending on the day???
NT--Seems to take offense at direct insults only.

The above is my off the cuff interpretation....

Your interpretation sucks a bunch of ass. I take as much offense from idiotic garble like this as I do from direct insults. Your ideas are Wrong. You are a genius, however.

[tragula]

Hmm. Well.

First off. I thought you were more offended by stuff like this then by direct insults... people seem remarkably inconsistent about their positions on this thread.

Secondly. I don't think it's wrong to suggest that SF is much more sensitive to hot words and criticism.

Thirdly. Thank you! :-) Your post is an excellent example of "tone" issues. By which I mean I sense a distinct lack of "friendliness" or "playful banter." Interesting. It's not always the words. Sometimes it's how someone says something. That's what makes it so tricky I suppose. People can take offense to the substance or the "style" of a post.

Lastly. On a tangent. You know, being wrong is not such a bad thing really! It's the only way to really learn something, if you think about. Personally I try to be wrong as much as possible, at least about the little things. You take a little risk. You get shot down. You get up smarter....

[booyalab]

EZ: Exactly, my friend.

[tragula]

Yes, but.

It is absolutely critical to distinguish between a conversational style that someone finds "irritating" and a conversational tone that someone considers "hostile" to them personally.

Conversational styles can include the following:

Sarcastic
Bubbly
Loud
Abrasive
Gruff
Vulnerable (almost always popular people!)
Moody
Petulant
Know it all
Negative
Condescending *looks in mirror, coughs violently*
Provocative
Earthy

etc. etc.

Now we are all bound to find one or two of those styles personally annoying. But that doesn't constitute a personal attack! The best way to deal with that issue is to limit contact with people who rub us the wrong way, if possible.

(To what extent different conversational styles correlate with Type, or can simply be variations within Type, is beyond the scope of my point.)

Now people with any conversational style have the ability to talk in "hostile" ways, and "radiate" aggression at someone. That is the small aspect of conversational tone that can be considered a personal attack!

:)