3 ms·

It's only an ad hominem if I say he's wrong because of who he is. This can't be an ad hominem if I don't actually address the argument he puts forward, which I

It's only an ad hominem if I say he's wrong because of who he is. This can't be an ad hominem if I don't actually address the argument he puts forward, which I did not do (for better or for worse). The content I've added is, "This article is hard for me to read because of its tone." Agree or disagree, I found it difficult to get through, and hard to see what Glenn was trying to point out as a result of the tone he chose. Am I not allowed to comment on an article's tone?

jameslk 6y ago
> he's never been very adept at objectivity or impartiality. > I'm honestly surprised more folks haven't seen through his shtick yet In these you attack the author rather his points. Being hard to read for you doesn't discredit the article's arguments either. I'd rather hear what you dislike about the points being made rather than how they read, because the former is more important to having an actual conversation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]