Personal Attacks
Personal Attacks
A personal attack occurs when someone responds to the person rather than the argument. Rather than addressing the point being made, they attack the other member's character, motives, intelligence, reputation, identity, or personal circumstances.
Examples of personal attacks include:
* Insults and name-calling.
* Attacking a member's character instead of addressing their argument.
* Dismissing an argument because of who made it rather than what was said.
* Bringing up irrelevant personal information to discredit another member.
By contrast, strongly disagreeing with an opinion is not a personal attack. Members are free to challenge ideas, arguments, facts, and conclusions. The discussion should focus on the issue being debated, not on the person presenting it.
Personal attacks stifle debate because they shift attention away from the issue being discussed and onto the people involved.
Personal attacks undermine productive discussion. Once a debate becomes about the participants rather than the topic, meaningful conversation usually stops, and other members are discouraged from participating. For that reason, personal attacks are discouraged throughout the forum.
That does not mean every instance will be treated identically. Context matters. Members sometimes say things in frustration or allow a discussion to become heated. Our concern is less with isolated lapses and more with patterns of behavior that repeatedly disrupt discussion. Moderation will consider the circumstances, severity, and frequency of the conduct when deciding how to respond.
Personal attacks are common in some settings, particularly politics, because they can be an effective way to distract from an argument or rally supporters. This forum, however, exists for discussion and debate. Members are expected to address arguments with evidence, reasoning, and counterarguments rather than attacks on other members.
If you believe another member has personally attacked you, please report the post to a greeter. Avoid responding in kind. In many reported disputes, we find that personal attacks have been exchanged by multiple participants, which only makes moderation more difficult.
If you choose to respond, keep the focus on the topic. A simple response such as "Please address my argument rather than me" is usually more effective than returning the attack.
Remember: ideas are fair game; forum members are not.
A Note on Disagreement
Being disagreed with, criticized, corrected, challenged, contradicted, or proven wrong is not a personal attack, even when the disagreement is strong or blunt. Robust debate is part of a discussion forum, particularly in the political section. The line is crossed when the focus shifts from the argument to the person making it.
Attacking Public Figures
Criticism of public figures is generally outside the scope of this policy. However, members should keep in mind that insults are not arguments. Calling a politician, celebrity, journalist, or public official names may express your feelings, but it rarely persuades anyone who does not already agree with you. If your goal is to convince others, evidence and reasoning are usually far more effective than insults.
You are free to call public figures whatever you wish. Whether doing so helps your argument is another matter entirely. In most cases, name-calling does more to damage the credibility of the person making the argument than the person being discussed.
This does not mean all comments about public figures are productive or encouraged. Members should still strive to discuss issues rather than trade insults. However, the purpose of this policy is to prevent forum members from attacking one another and derailing discussion.
Attacking the Source
Personal attacks shift attention from the topic and onto the person making the argument. A similar problem occurs when members focus on the source of information rather than the information itself.
Members are free to question the reliability, accuracy, completeness, or bias of a source. However, simply dismissing an article, video, or report because of where it came from rarely advances the discussion.
It is reasonable to say, "Given the source, I'm not sure we're getting the whole story, but..." and then discuss the issue. It is less productive to turn a discussion about a news event, scientific discovery, or public policy into a debate about whether a particular news outlet, website, or content creator is trustworthy.
The problem there isn't that you have attacked the source, but that you have derailed the thread.
If you believe a source is unreliable, explain why and address the claims being made. If you are unwilling to read the article or watch the video being discussed, that's fine, but then you can't meaningfully contribute to the discussion.
As with personal attacks, the goal is to keep the focus on the subject being discussed rather than redirecting attention elsewhere.
However...
Substituting a link to a third-party site or AI content should not be used in lieu of a reply unless you are replying to someone asking you for that information.
Discussions are between people, not sources. A battle of sources isn't going to hold anyone's attention.
A personal attack occurs when someone responds to the person rather than the argument. Rather than addressing the point being made, they attack the other member's character, motives, intelligence, reputation, identity, or personal circumstances.
Examples of personal attacks include:
* Insults and name-calling.
* Attacking a member's character instead of addressing their argument.
* Dismissing an argument because of who made it rather than what was said.
* Bringing up irrelevant personal information to discredit another member.
By contrast, strongly disagreeing with an opinion is not a personal attack. Members are free to challenge ideas, arguments, facts, and conclusions. The discussion should focus on the issue being debated, not on the person presenting it.
Personal attacks stifle debate because they shift attention away from the issue being discussed and onto the people involved.
Personal attacks undermine productive discussion. Once a debate becomes about the participants rather than the topic, meaningful conversation usually stops, and other members are discouraged from participating. For that reason, personal attacks are discouraged throughout the forum.
That does not mean every instance will be treated identically. Context matters. Members sometimes say things in frustration or allow a discussion to become heated. Our concern is less with isolated lapses and more with patterns of behavior that repeatedly disrupt discussion. Moderation will consider the circumstances, severity, and frequency of the conduct when deciding how to respond.
Personal attacks are common in some settings, particularly politics, because they can be an effective way to distract from an argument or rally supporters. This forum, however, exists for discussion and debate. Members are expected to address arguments with evidence, reasoning, and counterarguments rather than attacks on other members.
If you believe another member has personally attacked you, please report the post to a greeter. Avoid responding in kind. In many reported disputes, we find that personal attacks have been exchanged by multiple participants, which only makes moderation more difficult.
If you choose to respond, keep the focus on the topic. A simple response such as "Please address my argument rather than me" is usually more effective than returning the attack.
Remember: ideas are fair game; forum members are not.
A Note on Disagreement
Being disagreed with, criticized, corrected, challenged, contradicted, or proven wrong is not a personal attack, even when the disagreement is strong or blunt. Robust debate is part of a discussion forum, particularly in the political section. The line is crossed when the focus shifts from the argument to the person making it.
Attacking Public Figures
Criticism of public figures is generally outside the scope of this policy. However, members should keep in mind that insults are not arguments. Calling a politician, celebrity, journalist, or public official names may express your feelings, but it rarely persuades anyone who does not already agree with you. If your goal is to convince others, evidence and reasoning are usually far more effective than insults.
You are free to call public figures whatever you wish. Whether doing so helps your argument is another matter entirely. In most cases, name-calling does more to damage the credibility of the person making the argument than the person being discussed.
This does not mean all comments about public figures are productive or encouraged. Members should still strive to discuss issues rather than trade insults. However, the purpose of this policy is to prevent forum members from attacking one another and derailing discussion.
Attacking the Source
Personal attacks shift attention from the topic and onto the person making the argument. A similar problem occurs when members focus on the source of information rather than the information itself.
Members are free to question the reliability, accuracy, completeness, or bias of a source. However, simply dismissing an article, video, or report because of where it came from rarely advances the discussion.
It is reasonable to say, "Given the source, I'm not sure we're getting the whole story, but..." and then discuss the issue. It is less productive to turn a discussion about a news event, scientific discovery, or public policy into a debate about whether a particular news outlet, website, or content creator is trustworthy.
The problem there isn't that you have attacked the source, but that you have derailed the thread.
If you believe a source is unreliable, explain why and address the claims being made. If you are unwilling to read the article or watch the video being discussed, that's fine, but then you can't meaningfully contribute to the discussion.
As with personal attacks, the goal is to keep the focus on the subject being discussed rather than redirecting attention elsewhere.
However...
Substituting a link to a third-party site or AI content should not be used in lieu of a reply unless you are replying to someone asking you for that information.
Discussions are between people, not sources. A battle of sources isn't going to hold anyone's attention.