2 ms·
I'm not sure how ad-hominem personal attacks suddenly became the primary way of debate. Attack the speaker and undermine his credibility instead of arguing a
by andyxor 6y ago
I'm not sure how ad-hominem personal attacks suddenly became the primary way of debate.
Attack the speaker and undermine his credibility instead of arguing about what he has to say. I see it time after time in online and offline discussions.
Which kind of illustrates his point.
- tptacek 6y agoI'm arguing substantively with you. The argument is about the trustworthiness of someone else. The concept of the ad hominem fallacy does not mean it is impossible to discuss someone else's credibility. Perhaps we've had our wires crossed, and you think I'm arguing "because Pinker says campus culture is corrupted, campus culture must be fine, because Pinker is corrupted". That is not my argument. A good resource on this is the "Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy" post, and I recommend it to you heartily.
- mushbino 6y agoAt a certain point the messenger becomes the message. There is a big difference between isolated events and patterns.