Maybe I am sometimes merely looking for confirmation that they will behave in a certain way when goaded and I won't be emotionally crushed if my hypothesis is wrong.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Like, by labeling and using incendiary language, we're often trying to confirm our own beliefs about them as opposed to "providing stimulus to learn about how others think."

At the very least we're just starting **** to see what happens.

Grunching: you guys are a bunch of jive-ass turkeys.

Finally, someone in this forum who knows how to use hyphens correctly.

but whether its silly or not, the fact is that you sometimes know it is likely to be taken as a personal attack. Then by your own standards it is a personal attack as what you intended is 'hidden' from the person being addressed.

You can simply say that some types of personal attack are allowed and others aren't. "You are sexist" can never be strictly be required to invalidate an argument but its clearly a type of personal attack you can identify and allow if you wish.

Its not something I'd argue for banning if its recognized as a personal attack and not abused. I wouldn't ban it anyway but it's abuse should be moderated except maybe in PU.

You are bad with English and logic. Translation: your posts demonstrate a lack of understanding of the English language and the basics of logical reasoning.

It's not my job to figure out how each person I talk to takes my comments. I assume people are reasonable and if they end up extremely sensitive that's their issue and not mine. And claiming that a reasonable analysis of someone's posts becomes a personal attack only because they're overly sensitive is ridiculous.

If I seek to provoke a reaction or response, I either have a belief about what I expect to happen or I have no idea what will happen. In the former case, I am looking for confirmation of what I believe. In the latter case, I just want to see what happens. So long as I can accept that people sometimes don't do what I expect, I don't see a problem.

If you're attempting communication then of course it is

Its nothing about being sensitive. Ignoring consequences you are aware of is most definitely your issue. Saying you don't think they should be consequences is irrelevant.

If you know the consequences of attacking by saying X is that X will be taken personally then saying X is a personal attack whether you think it should be or not.

The fact it is very common for people to use your type of language as a personal attack make it all the less defensible.

Is pointing out bad grammar a personal attack?

Calling people sensitive like it is a flaw is very ignorant of human nature.

We must face that people who delight in indefensible meanness and denigration will defend and rationalize that behavior anyway they can. It's like they are drug addicts, except meanness is a conscious attitude that has no external substance altering their conscious and subconscious faculties.

no; but saying Im bad at grammar would be

not one you should imo be banned for though..

If I attack Texas by saying that it is a horrible place to live and a proud Texan takes it personally and tells me "Don't mess with Texas", does that make my criticism of Texas a personal attack on the Texan?

Does it have a purpose?

If you know it is causing offense then you are being deliberately offensive if you say it to them. That may be ok of course and it might not be personal.

If you know the Texan believes you are saying Texas is a horrible place to live because of them (in part) then yes its a personal attack. That may still be ok of course.

The later is more like the JJ scenario because the poster is clearly responsible for the post.

I am personally offended by bad grammar.

If you're provoking a response by labeling in this way, you're diminishing the chance that your response will come from a place of reason or rationality. I argue that often this is the intended purpose of this communication style as it allows for others to respond in ways that allow for ones views to be confirmed.

If you want greater understanding through clear, purposeful communication, you'll fight the urge to throw labels around. Go back to my comment about your use of, "interpreting." Posting online has to be one of the most ineffective contexts of communication. A tentative, exploratory approach is almost always best.

Why should I only be interested in responses that come from a place of reason or rationality?

I'd ask why you'd want unreasonable, irrational responses from people you suspect to hold sexist views. Other than, obviously, provoking evidence that the poster is an unlikable sexist just as you suspected.

Again, "interpret." Not every post that smells like covert sexism is covert sexism. Ask a follow up question or two. Allow for reiterations. Be reasonable and accept the limitations of forum discussions.

A forum culture that doesn't do so invites the flies.

People are not reasonable or rational 100% of the time. I am interested in the totality of human thought, not just when people are being reasonable.

The idea of defining a personal attack based on if someone gets offended is obviously wrong.

but defining it in terms of whether you have good reason to believe it will be taken as a personal attack is correct.

or simplified for use in forums:

"A post is considered a personal attack if its commonly taken as a personal attack by readers"

Then 'X is a sexist' is definitely such a comment and is definitely a personal attack unless its clear otherwise - which we pretty much all already knew of course, you just insist any reader who take it as a personal attack is being silly (which is dubious but irrelevant anyway).

Accepting the obvious that it is a personal attack doesn't mean accepting it's always bad thing to do.

Many/all of the discussions about isms ITF are highly contentious and, more often than not, become heated/unreasonable/irrational dialogues that devolve into poo flinging. This is the truth. Also true is this being considered undesirable by posters in the Chained forum.

If you want constructive, open and honest conversation in an online forum about the isms, it's important to consider the likely result of throwing undesirable labels on posts/people. You're gonna almost certainly raise defenses and increase the ambient tension levels.

I disagree with your first paragraph. I don't entirely agree with your simplified form version but it's certainly a reasonable position.

okay well that should help us communicate as its pretty much what I mean. Its a simplification so sometimes we might need more but at least its some solid ground. It can in principle be improved on at times. Alternative which contradict the general idea would be interesting to hear.

I hope you would consider a bit more about how communication includes considering how other people take what you say. If not (or you do and disagree) then fair enough but it's not nonsense.