Personal Attacks - Inherently Personal Words

[Greg H.]

I don’t think these steps are applicable unless one has indulged in a small sherry, beforehand.

Or a very large scotch.

[imatfaal]

 

Apologies - what I meant was calling a poster's reasoning ridiculous/ludicrous/etc can be useful as an appeal to the audience when it's clear that rational discourse has led to a declining discussion. It's unlikely to produce positive results in terms of the OP, but by the time it's employed, rational discussion with the OP has presumably failed.

 

E.g. "Suggesting that unicorns eat garbage proves that it is safe for human consumption is a ridiculous argument, and it doesn't address criticisms a, b and c of your garbage food idea. Can you go back and explain why a, b and c don't apply to your idea, rather than presenting increasingly preposterous arguments for it, please?"

 

But preposterous and ridiculous are adjectives that can (and perhaps must in case of preposterous) apply to the product of the mind rather than the mind itself. You can ridicule an idea - an idea that one believes is deserving of ridicule is ridiculous; preposterous is merely an old way of saying confusing and absurd (lit. forward-backwards) and applies to the idea. There exists, at least in my mind, a clear delination between your two examples and those given by Phi in the OP; and thus I would agree that preposterous and ridiculous are perfectly acceptable

 

 

 

I see your point. The connotation of the word can influence the message, which is often something I forget (I spend more time talking to computers than people, to be frank).

 

Just wait till some bright spark cracks full AI and the computers start answering back and listing all the times you have let them down!

[Phi for All]

"Ever" is a bit too absolute, but once we know the history of the poster we can with some accuracy anticipate the likelihood that a future post will be moronic or not.

I used "ever" purposefully, in reference to ad hominems. The fallacy attempts to discredit the person who has the idea in order to discredit the idea. To me at least, the implication is that this person's idea HAS to be moronic because the person is a moron. But you're right, it's another reason the argument as a whole is fallacious, it's applied too generally.

 

I think it's a laudable goal, but it's not possible to completely separate the person from their ideas in the way you're trying. What are we as conscious beings other than the expression of ideas (and actions that are themselves driven by ideas and thoughts)? At some point, the idea and the person need to be treated as one and the same.

 

But if we treat people and their ideas as inseparable, don't we end up like every other site that lets members "call them as they see them"? I think our approach still ends up with a lot of worthless chatter about abuse and harsh realities, but how much worse would it be if we stopped making people check their flamethrowers at the door?

 

And why should I need to consider the person at all when I'm thinking about their idea? Aren't I supposed to filter out extraneous bias as much as possible? And since I can't truly know about that person while I'm discussing their ideas over the internet, why is it an important parameter?

 

We achieve some flexibility in that we have MANY ideas that form who we are, not just one. This creates opportunity for nuance with some ideas that are idiotic and others that are brilliant and most that are just "meh." One moronic idea doesn't make the person a moron, but there clearly is some threshold where calling them a moron is perfectly reasonable after the count of moronic ideas that compose their being gets high enough.

 

I would hope that we can all raise our personal thresholds a bit, and perhaps staff can be more vigilant in helping difficult members move along before it becomes reasonable to call them morons.

 

Apologies - what I meant was calling a poster's reasoning ridiculous/ludicrous/etc can be useful as an appeal to the audience when it's clear that rational discourse has led to a declining discussion. It's unlikely to produce positive results in terms of the OP, but by the time it's employed, rational discussion with the OP has presumably failed.

 

E.g. "Suggesting that unicorns eat garbage proves that it is safe for human consumption is a ridiculous argument, and it doesn't address criticisms a, b and c of your garbage food idea. Can you go back and explain why a, b and c don't apply to your idea, rather than presenting increasingly preposterous arguments for it, please?"

 

I consider someone's reasoning to be part of the idea process, and so it's fair game for a rigorous treatment as well. How you arrived at a ridiculous idea is often what made it ridiculous in the first place. We know there is a place for ridicule, from other threads on the topic, as long as it implies nothing personal.

[Greg H.]

Just wait till some bright spark cracks full AI and the computers start answering back and listing all the times you have let them down!

When that happens, I'll do what I normally do with people - ignore them and carry on about my business.

[iNow]

But if we treat people and their ideas as inseparable, don't we end up like every other site that lets members "call them as they see them"?

No, I don't think that follows. I suggest it's possible to both treat them and their ideas as equal while still successfully moderating the tone and nature of that treatment. They are not mutually exclusive, IMO.

 

The person and the idea overlap to a tremendous degree and instead of trying to separate attacks on the idea with attacks on the person, it might be simpler to just ask people to "try not to be an asshole." Wouldn't that largely achieve the same thing regardless of how we parse it?

[Dekan]

Mightn't this be influenced by the way the English language works. Especially in the existence, or non-existence, of certain nouns.

 

For example, we have a noun "moron". Therefore, if we use its adjectival derivative "moronic" to describe an idea, there's an automatic implication that it comes from "a moron".

 

But we can use "ridiculous" to describe an idea, without the implying that it came from "a ridiculous". Because in English there's no such thing as "a ridiculous".

 

(At least, not yet......)

[davidivad]

you cannot argue with a fool.

only a fool does.

you cannot force a person to take a better position.

you can only change ignorance by ignoring it.

those willing to overcome their personal limits will change.

those who will not are left to find a site that caters more to what they want.

 

note the difference in the way i used these words.

every response in every thread can be read and the intent realized.

Edited June 3, 2014 by davidivad

[iNow]

you cannot argue with a fool.

I disagree (of course you can, and sometimes you can even convince them to change their position or educate them into a less foolish state).

 

you can only change ignorance by ignoring it.

I disagree (ignoring it is what allows it to fester, and ignorance is very frequently overcome with education and rational dialog).

 

those willing to overcome their personal limits will change.

I disagree (it wouldn't be a "limit" if they could overcome it).

 

every response in every thread can be read and the intent realized.

I disagree (intent is often very ambiguous and sometimes nearly impossible to determine).

[Acme]

you cannot argue with a fool.

only a fool does.

Now whether or not you actually use these terms in a reply, your using them here as you do makes clear that not only do you hold these classifications in your mind, but that you find the meaning of 'fool' germane in posting.

 

you cannot force a person to take a better position.

you can only change ignorance by ignoring it.

Granted you can't force a person into acceptance of an argument, but you can certainly achieve the outcome by persuasive arguments in select cases. While common [mis]usage has given 'ignorant' the same implication as 'stupid', the meanings are quite different. An ignorant person lacks understanding, information, knowledge, or education but these deficits can be remedied. A stupid person on the other hand lacks the ability to learn and remediation is to no avail.

 

those willing to overcome their personal limits will change.

I would say they 'may' change, moreover a personal limit is just that, a limit. As I said above, there is no remediation for stupid.

 

those who will not are left to find a site that caters more to what they want.

In the case of this forum, the choice to leave is often not up to those who don't, won't, or can't learn as evidenced by the banned/suspended thread used by the staff. While I think that thread is a good idea, in the vein of this thread it is anything but impersonal.

 

note the difference in the way i used these words.

every response in every thread can be read and the intent realized.

My comments above cover the way you used 'those' words. As to realized intent, if you mean that everyone understands when a poster pretties up a criticism with eupehemisms and indirect terminology that the criticism is actually directed at the person, then I conditionally agree. The Emperor has no clothes and all that. I said 'conditionally' because stupid readers do not understand such nuanced prettifications.

 

As I said early on to Phi, I don't envy the position of staff members in having to make determinations on what is or is not crossing the line. As I am given to occasional hyperbole and per se direct address myself, I resolve to give future responses more consideration. Not to indulge the sensitivities of those stupid morons that I may direct my responses to, but to lighten the burden of those who graciously volunteer to moderate. After all, not only do I enjoy lipsticking pigs, I'm good at it.

[davidivad]

your opinions are dually noted as surely are mine.

perhaps this argument is proof that objectivity goes hand in hand with good science.

[Acme]

your opinions are dually noted as surely are mine.

perhaps this argument is proof that objectivity goes hand in hand with good science.

Not sure if you're having a little joke with me, but the word you want there is 'duly'. Dually is funny though, in the context of we two.

As to opinions, well, we all know what those are like. I seriously doubt this discussion is proof of little more than that we think, therefore we argue.

[davidivad]

at least it makes for a good debate.

it is nice to see that users are willing to tackle the issue.

[imatfaal]

cogitamus ergo disputamus

[Spyman]

What the staff filters for are ad hominem attacks, the kind that try to imply that not only is the idea bad, but the person who had it can't be trusted to ever have a good idea. Telling someone they've evaded a question doesn't come close to implying that. It's not an attack on the person.

 

I think of the word "disparage", i.e., regarding something as having little worth. We can disparage ideas, but shouldn't disparage people.

Yes and I must say that the staff are doing an excellent work with intercepting and keeping the forum clean and on a civil level.

[dimreepr]

Yes and I must say that the staff are doing an excellent work with intercepting and keeping the forum clean and on a civil level.

 

Here here, this is one of a very few places on the net where an idea can be expressed and critiqued without having to filter numerous idiot/trolls posts to get to those worth reading, the reply being drowned in the noise.

 

I have yet to see a mod intervention I didn’t agree with, however reluctantly; this introspection is great to see and helps maintain the high standards but it does create a ‘catch 22’ situation, simply because it’s not needed.

 

Now that has to get me an invite to the next cheez nip party.

[Phi for All]

No, I don't think that follows. I suggest it's possible to both treat them and their ideas as equal while still successfully moderating the tone and nature of that treatment. They are not mutually exclusive, IMO.

 

The person and the idea overlap to a tremendous degree and instead of trying to separate attacks on the idea with attacks on the person, it might be simpler to just ask people to "try not to be an asshole." Wouldn't that largely achieve the same thing regardless of how we parse it?

 

I can see your point, and if everyone involved could operate without lines in the sand, I think it would be the most honest way to discuss anything. But this would mean leaving a fairly clean interpretation of "personal attack" in favor of a much more subjective "asshole scale".

[studiot]

Since we are discussing this, what do the rules say about the reflexive voice?

 

Say for instance I posted

 

Silly me (or worse)?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I think that it's in my nature to befriend people, even if the only interaction I have with them is over a platform like this. I want to be everyone's friend here, but at the same time there is a line that should not be crossed because if you do it is not "in the spirit of the community". I was watching a lecture on the nature of nothing which was moderated by Neil degrasse Tyson. That lecture was not in the spirit of science. They were having fun with each other just drinking and talking on stage. I like seeing that, and I think that right in the beginning Lawrence was about to lay down a few ideas that would have conflicted with another persons ideas, but he was interrupted and instead something like "I just want to let you know *interruption* you're an ignorant slut". It was ok, he didn't get banned from the conversation lol.

[barfbag]

I have disagred with "Phi For ALL"'s personal assessment of the insults used in the Killer Drone thread.

 

It is still on first page and I challenge anybody to read it and not spot the insults and attacks despite my polite demeanor throughout the thread.

 

An example...

 

A person directed a post at me and said,

While I know this forum doesn't have an age restriction,

 

and continued as if I was not old enough to comment.

 

Am I the only person that can see that as an insult?

 

The comment about age restriction isn't rude, but it is fallacious to assume age has any bearing on knowledge. Sort of a reverse Appeal to Authority fallacy, but not rude. This is the type of thing you mention in thread, like, "I know you can't be arguing that I'm too young, since that's an Appeal to Inexperience, saying I can't be right because of my age."

 

If age has any bearing on the quality of a person's posts, it's usually because of experience. Many people here can do the maths required for lift, thrust, recoil and momentum in their heads, the way the rest of us think of a grocery list. When you get pushback from one of those guys, it's because the math doesn't work out and they're trying to help you move on to another idea or fix the one you have.

 

 

Note.. I just posted a video where a tiny drone was weaponized. The idea of personal drones being weaponized seems like a logical progression and feasibility is not an issue. Read the thread if you have doubts.

 

So.. if someone is insulting you it is acceptable to say to them..

 

"I know Scienceforums doesn't have an age restriction, but I expect your comments to be intelligent"

 

because according to moderation here (not all possibly) that is not insulting or demeaning.

 

I took it as a stab at maturity, but maybe I'm wrong. (NOT).

 

I challenge anyone to read that entire thread and pretend you are a moderator..

 

NOTE: If this is the wrong place to complain about moderation then it was honest mistake. Please direct me to whom I should PM or where to post. Phi for All commented on this thread in a locked moderation section so I thought a rebuttal was in order.

Edited June 18, 2014 by barfbag

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

barfbag

Firstly; it is not just Phi's personal opinion - when posting as staff we take collective responsibility and suppress personal feelings. Phi's post is a staff response to a report - it is most certainly not an invitation for further debate.

Secondly, the post you have quoted above as an example of a member insulting you as a person is clearly addressed to your argument and explicitly asked you to raise the tone of your argument. The post did not contain personal insults - it did however criticise your argument; this is completely within the rules.

 

"I know Scienceforums doesn't have an age restriction, but I expect your comments to be intelligent"

I cannot find this in the thread on killer drones. I do however see this

While I know this forum doesn't have an age restriction, I expect the discussions here to be civil and mature. Think you could kick it up a notch in the future?

This confirms the point that the criticism was directed at your post and argument rather than at you.

It also raises a very important problem - you seem to have deliberately changed a quote in order to make your point. This action is completely unacceptable. If I have merely missed the instance of your quote please PM me and I will remove this section; I am correct please be advised that manipulating quotes in order to misrepresent another member is an offence that may lead to suspension or banning.

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread. Response to moderation should never be on the public boards.

 

As a rule of thumb it would be better if you made more substantive posts on the science and fewer posts commenting on others' posting style, criticising moderation, and commenting on the ethos of this forum.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

everyone else

 

barfbag's post does not open the door for a discussion on this specific point. If this thread is to continue please can we ensure that it is kept to a conceptual level and not concentrating on member's actual posts

 

[Acme]

Continuing the thread on a conceptual level, there is a tacit acknowledgement in all this that there is no keeping the personal out. Attacking an idea is -as the title suggests- inherently an attack on the person who puts forward the idea.

 

Nowhere is this made more obvious than in the rules of the Philosphy and Religion section. To whit:

Philosophy and Religion Rules

Philosophy/religion forum rules:

1.Never make it personal.

a. Disagreements about beliefs should never be in the form of attacks on the believers. This isn't a place to air grievances. Civility and respect towards other members are needed here even more than elsewhere on SFN, even when you disagree.

b. Disagreements about beliefs should never be interpreted as attacks on the believers, even when they are. If you can't handle having your beliefs questioned, you don't belong here. If you feel insulted, that does not excuse you from rule 1.a. ...

So by the very rule I have bolded it is understood that attacking the idea is an attack on the idea-haver, but we are all to just ignore it. Presumably this applies to members and staff alike. It then comes down to the fact that this is not a democracy -discussed in other threads- and whatever interpretation the divine error-free staff agrees to is what rules the day regardless of any contradictions in reason or rule. Pay no attention to the people behind the curtain.

 

So gird your loins then ladies and germs and arm up with your euphemisms, subtle sarcasm, and innuendo just like everyday life. What's good for the goose is a good polite chop to the throat by the gander. I can live with that complexity.

[Phi for All]

So by the very rule I have bolded it is understood that attacking the idea is an attack on the idea-haver, but we are all to just ignore it.

 

No, attacking the idea is not automatically attacking the idea-haver. The whole point of the title is that certain words seem to do that all on their own and we should avoid them in the interest of keeping conversations flowing.

 

Many religious people have a hard time separating themselves from what they believe in, and some have used this in the past to claim any attack on their faith is an attack on them personally. The rule is there in Religion/Philosophy to let people know that beliefs are like ideas, fair game for rigorous scientific inquiry, and are not the people who have them.

 

I'm still not interested in allowing insults just because some people find it diverting. Drawing the line between people and their ideas still seems the easiest way for us to be consistent.

[Acme]

No, attacking the idea is not automatically attacking the idea-haver. The whole point of the title is that certain words seem to do that all on their own and we should avoid them in the interest of keeping conversations flowing.

 

Many religious people have a hard time separating themselves from what they believe in, and some have used this in the past to claim any attack on their faith is an attack on them personally. The rule is there in Religion/Philosophy to let people know that beliefs are like ideas, fair game for rigorous scientific inquiry, and are not the people who have them.

 

I'm still not interested in allowing insults just because some people find it diverting. Drawing the line between people and their ideas still seems the easiest way for us to be consistent.

That's all well and good. I notice a few of your comments in the ban thread take the tone of insults, but as those are the end of people and their conversation I can see why that's OK.

[Ophiolite]

I suspect the greater part of the issues with insults, real or imagined, stems from the following types:

 

1. Anti-social persons who are offensive by their nature. (Probably a small minority of the offenders.)

2. People who are over sensitive, or insecure and see attacks in the mildest of comments.

3. Persons who employ subtle language use to probe at sensitive areas without overtly being insulting, probably because they get some twisted pleasure from it.

 

I invite the reader to identify the examples of behaviour 3 in my post.

[Acme]

I suspect the greater part of the issues with insults, real or imagined, stems from the following types:

 

1. Anti-social persons who are offensive by their nature. (Probably a small minority of the offenders.)

2. People who are over sensitive, or insecure and see attacks in the mildest of comments.

3. Persons who employ subtle language use to probe at sensitive areas without overtly being insulting, probably because they get some twisted pleasure from it.

 

I invite the reader to identify the examples of behaviour 3 in my post.

There is a certain hypocrisy between behaviors promoted here and behaviors promoted elsewhere by some behavior promoters. Assign whatever number you like to it.

 

...Let's assume it's in everyone's best interest for you to search out the people who are supposed to bring satisfaction to others but always seem to disappoint. Clerks who should be helpful but aren't. Receptionists who don't know who does what at their companies. Anyone in foodservice who can't smile.

 

Now you simply filter for those folks, and figure out what will simultaneously help the rest of us out while making you feel immense pleasure at being disappointed. I would suggest getting your grump on with an extremely well-worded admonishment designed to shake up that person and make them re-assess their life choices....