The issue is that it's often possible to stretch the category "attacks" to encompass to useful arguments, if you're motivated to do so. This becomes a mechanism

The issue is that it's often possible to stretch the category "attacks" to encompass to useful arguments, if you're motivated to do so. This becomes a mechanism to shut down discussion, ultimately weakening the conversation, leading to groupthink conclusions and boring echo chambers. E.g. Imagine someone posts (in a context where it's on-topic), "Research [0] has shown that Trump supporters have significantly greater racism than Trump resisters." We can easily see how that statement can be interpreted as an "attack on a group". A pro-Trump forum may flag it to death. Yet assuming there is a good-faith effort to link valid science there, it's also an on-topic scientific result that advances discussion. Rational, valid, discussion-advancing points can also be easily interpreted as "attacks on a group". However, just because something pattern matches as an "attack on a group", one should not discount it (assuming one values rational discussion itself, which I do). Because it may be a necessary part of the discussion. -- Appendix: (Of course I don't think a statement about Trump supporters would get flagged here, not because of the form of the statement but because of who is being discussed. Imagine the statement is changed to any of a million ideas or science papers which step outside the very narrow corridor of acceptable beliefs in the San Francisco morality. I use the Trump supporter example to give some perspective of how it might feel to be on the side who thinks a statement is valuable and on-topic, but be slagged by the local majority as making an "attack". And there really is no other way to get those facts into the discussion; it's not a matter of wording or good faith, it's the notion that some facts and ideas are simply not allowed.)