# When "Attack the post, not the poster" is insufficient. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 6, 2016, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164 "2016-09-06T03:03:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/1 "2016-09-06T03:03:42Z")
> [@Killing animals for food](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-animals-for-food/765066/31): > > This is utter and total, ignorant rubbish. Quite frankly I think we can discount your input simply based on this balderdash. > … > At this stage I think we can probably all simply ignore what ou have to say as ignorant silliness, can’t we? > [@Killing animals for food](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-animals-for-food/765066/34): > > More ignorant bullshit. > … > The ignorance that you spout in this topic is quoite wonderful. Please keep it up. Nothing highlights the total lack of any in depth research quite like it. > … > Want to try answering this time, instead of spouting feed conversion numbers that are unbelievably silly to anyon with any understanding of agronomy? > [@Killing animals for food](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-animals-for-food/765066/36): > > More non-responsive nonsense. More ignorant, provably untrue nonsense > … > Last chance to answer before I (and most other Dopers I suspect) write you off. > [@Killing animals for food](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-animals-for-food/765066/38): > > More provably wring ignorant nonsense. > … > Seriously, you post so much provably erroneous silliness that i am now giving you your final chance. Answer the actual question as it relates to your actual post, or I’ll just give up an let others judge your level of knowledge and credibility on this subject. > > It won’t be hard, given what you’ve written in your last 3 posts. > [@Killing animals for food](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-animals-for-food/765066/39): > > I think anyone who cares has fair idea of his level of knowledge on this subject as well as his ability engage. Long on emotive rhetoric, short on knowledge and argument. > > Good luck convincing Dopers with ignorance and evasion, my friend. You’ll need it. 😃 > [@Killing animals for food](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-animals-for-food/765066/41): > > I’m sure at this stage that everyone can see quite clearly how credible Crazyhorse is on his topic. I could keep going just to bait him into spouting more silliness, but when a position has hit rock bottom, it can’t be discredited any more. I’d just be trolling. So, I reported the last post early this morning, mentioning that it’s one in a series. I know it’s Labor Day, and maybe that’s the reason why there’s no action on the post; but it’s also possible that mods are seeing something different in these posts than I am. Several of these posts stay just this side of “attack the post, not the poster.” However, the vitriol in them is so caustic that they challenge that rule, in my opinion. They make discussion deeply unpleasant, they violate any standard of civility, they add nothing to productive debate. I’m not suggesting we need additional rules–and here’s a preemptive :dubious: for anyone who replies by suggesting I am. Rather, I’m wondering whether the “don’t be a jerk” standard might be ill-served by treating all attacks on posters as worse than attacks on posts. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/2 "2016-09-06T06:04:18Z")
I was watching the give-and-take of this thread with some dismay. Maybe “That’s bullshit” can work once, but when it becomes a tennis-volley, lobbed back and forth – “That’s horseshit” “That’s crazy” “That’s stupid” “That’s totally ignorant” – then it starts to be too ugly and contrary to the standards of civility here (which are sometimes quite raveled.) I agree that the invective in that exchange is too invectivey. So… IMO, it should calm down. Meh. Nobody died and made me a moderator. Still, it isn’t that hard to conduct a debate without rudely dismissing the other guy’s views as “bullshit.” (Heck, in my opinion, you’re both part right…and part wrong!) ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/3 "2016-09-06T06:04:18Z")
" your level of knowledge and credibility " "how credible Crazyhorse is " “long on emotive rhetoric, short on knowledge and argument” Those look like outright personal attack, not attacks on posts, actually. I’d also argue that “ignorant” is _always_ an attack on the poster, not the post. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/4 "2016-09-06T06:05:41Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Still, it isn’t that hard to conduct a debate without rudely dismissing the other guy’s views as “bullshit.” When I use “bullshit”, I use it in the [technical sense.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit) ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/5 "2016-09-06T07:38:38Z")
I’m the poster Blake was replying to in these quotes. I agree he clearly was doing his best to get a personal shot in, edging as close to the line as he possibly could or past it. I chose not to reciprocate because I’ve danced this dance with him before in various debates over the years. It almost always ends the same way. When he finally starts spewing insults and repeatedly trying to demand a cite about some ridiculous minutiae that isn’t really even part of the discussion, I know it means he’s running out of gas and about to skulk off and probably never return to the thread. It’s all good as far as I’m concerned. He was however hijacking the hell out of what was an otherwise interesting thread, but I do just want to go on record that I didn’t report or encourage reporting of his posts. I can’t speak for anyone else who had to read it but as far as my part in it I’m not offended by his debate tactics or language. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/6 "2016-09-06T11:29:07Z")
I think people reporting it do it not just to defend you personally, it’s also to get the whole thread on track, and a good idea in GD in general. Reporting is a good tool and people should use it more often. And I say this as someone who gets very similar in tone to **Blake** in some GD threads. Sometimes being PMed or even publicly mod-noted is a good thing. I like **Blake** , he’s an asset, but he does get needlessly combative in GD at times, when threads really don’t need it. And it encourages pushback, speaking from personal experience. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/7 "2016-09-06T11:55:52Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > " your level of knowledge and credibility " > "how credible Crazyhorse is " > “long on emotive rhetoric, short on knowledge and argument” > Those look like outright personal attack, not attacks on posts, actually. I agree. There is also a rule about being civil\*, especially applied in GD these days, and the overall rule of not being a jerk. \*Outside the Pit, of course. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/8 "2016-09-06T14:16:50Z")
Being more a reader in a lot of the threads where this has happened I don’t have much of a dog in this fight. But ---- **Blake** does sometimes make a thread more of a chore to read. Not all the time and as far as I have seen not consistent against particular people across threads. It gets annoying when he hits a loop like this and, at least to me, crosses over the line as I see it enforced on others. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/9 "2016-09-06T14:42:32Z")
Blake was given a warning in that thread at 9:53 this morning. Justifiably so, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/10 "2016-09-06T15:32:52Z")
D’oh! It looks like my first suspicion may have been right–mods hadn’t yet gotten around to it–so my concerns about allowing this sort of post are moot. Glad to see these aren’t considered in-bounds for GD. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/11 "2016-09-06T15:44:44Z")
No, that’s OK. When you have a question feel free to ask. I couldn’t get to it for various reasons, but seeing this thread I took a look and decided to act. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/12 "2016-09-06T16:09:58Z")
Whatever else, it seems to me that, “spouting feed conversion numbers that are unbelievably silly to anyon with any understanding of agronomy,” belongs in some sort of hall of fame of SDMB esoterica. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/13 "2016-09-06T16:12:11Z")
Blake is a she ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/14 "2016-09-06T18:31:53Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I’d also argue that “ignorant” is _always_ an attack on the poster, not the post. I don’t think I agree with that as a blanket statement. I agree that simply criticizing something as (say) “ignorant nonsense” without also addressing the issues with substantive counterargument is an attack on the poster. But how about if it’s used in the context of a generally civil exchange, and supported by an exposition of the substance of what the interlocutor is ignorant _of_ - if, for example, an argument displays complete ignorance of a substantial body of scientific research? For example, if a creationist uses “why are there still monkeys” to support his position, I think it’s reasonable to describe that argument as ignorant of the basic principles of evolution, ideally in conjunction with an explanation of how evolution actually works. ---
**Author:** ![Memnon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@Memnon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Memnon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/15 "2016-09-06T19:03:40Z")
I’ve always thought the “Attack the post, not the poster” rule is too vague to be workable. Would I be allowed to say that Blake’s posts in that thread were, for example, “cuntingly stupid”? After all, I’m only attacking the post. How about “Blake’s posts in that thread were so full of shit you could use them to fertilise the moon”? I’m not attacking Blake, just his posts, so it’s okay, right? Truth is, it’s perfectly possible to be incredibly rude to someone without actually insulting them directly. I was actually going to Pit Blake over his posts in that thread but this thread has saved me the bother. I was genuinely taken aback at how much vitriol he was able to cram into them without _technically_ insulting Crazyhorse personally. How about this? When in GD, always treat your opponents with the utmost respect, and interpret their arguments as charitably as possible? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/16 "2016-09-06T19:16:14Z")
> [@Memnon](#): > > I’ve always thought the “Attack the post, not the poster” rule is too vague to be workable. Would I be allowed to say that Blake’s posts in that thread were, for example, “cuntingly stupid”? After all, I’m only attacking the post… As with what constitutes an _ad hominem_, I don’t think it hinges on the technical grammatical structure of the sentence. Clearly, if you circumlocute by saying “those are the words of a liar” that’s no different from saying “you’re a liar”. I think it hinges more on whether you address the substance of the post on its merits, as opposed to making direct _or indirect_ attacks on the character of the poster that are simply _irrelevant_ to the substance of the arguments stated in the post. If you’re doing the latter, it doesn’t matter whether the attacks are explicit or implicit - circumlocution is no justification. See this similar discussion of what constitutes and _ad hominem_: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19514864&postcount=9](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19514864&postcount=9) (Although note that I’m not suggesting that calling anyone crazy is okay in GD, even if what they write seems genuinely insane on its merits: GD is held to a higher standard that simply avoiding _ad hominem_.) ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/17 "2016-09-06T20:06:43Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I don’t think I agree with that as a blanket statement. > > I agree that simply criticizing something as (say) “ignorant nonsense” without also addressing the issues with substantive counterargument is an attack on the poster. > > But how about if it’s used in the context of a generally civil exchange, and supported by an exposition of the substance of what the interlocutor is ignorant _of_ - if, for example, an argument displays complete ignorance of a substantial body of scientific research? For example, if a creationist uses “why are there still monkeys” to support his position, I think it’s reasonable to describe that argument as ignorant of the basic principles of evolution, ideally in conjunction with an explanation of how evolution actually works. IMO, an argument can’t be ignorant, only a person can. If an argument “displays complete ignorance”, whose complete ignorance is it displaying? The argument’s? Or the posters? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/18 "2016-09-06T20:13:43Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > IMO, an argument can’t be ignorant, only a person can. If an argument “displays complete ignorance”, whose complete ignorance is it displaying? The argument’s? Or the posters? I agree, but is the constraint really about whether the form of words is _technically_ addressed to the post or the poster? It seems to me that it’s about whether you are actually addressing the _substance of what is actually written in the post_, and in a civil and constructive manner. If the arguments in the post are clearly written from a perspective of (say) complete ignorance of the relevant scientific principles, I’m not sure that I see it as a problem to (civilly) point that out and explain the science, even if _technically_ the ignorance is an attribute of the person rather than the post. If you like, it’s the flipside of the fact that the circumlocution “those are the words of a liar” is not an acceptable way to _circumvent_ the rule that you can’t call a person a liar. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/19 "2016-09-06T20:19:22Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Blake is a she No, he’s not: > [@Heterosexuals: can you generally tell whether someone of the same sex is attractive?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heterosexuals-can-you-generally-tell-whether-someone-of-the-same-sex-is-attractive/542363/33): > > I’m a straight man ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164/20 "2016-09-06T20:19:42Z")
> [@Memnon](#): > > I’ve always thought the “Attack the post, not the poster” rule is too vague to be workable. Would I be allowed to say that Blake’s posts in that thread were, for example, “cuntingly stupid”? After all, I’m only attacking the post. How about “Blake’s posts in that thread were so full of shit you could use them to fertilise the moon”? I’m not attacking Blake, just his posts, so it’s okay, right? > > Truth is, it’s perfectly possible to be incredibly rude to someone without actually insulting them directly. I was actually going to Pit Blake over his posts in that thread but this thread has saved me the bother. I was genuinely taken aback at how much vitriol he was able to cram into them without _technically_ insulting Crazyhorse personally. > > How about this? When in GD, always treat your opponents with the utmost respect, and interpret their arguments as charitably as possible? Exactly. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-attack-the-post-not-the-poster-is-insufficient/765164.md?page=2)