> There’s a word for this logical fallacy: ad hominem. That's a bit ironic, considering this entire post is nothing but a school of red herrings. For example

> There’s a word for this logical fallacy: ad hominem. That's a bit ironic, considering this entire post is nothing but a school of red herrings. For example : > What’s weird is that this line is almost exclusively employed against those who challenge the liberal-Democratic axis of thought on political or economic issues, even though no one seems to apply the logic consistently > I’ve actually seen, in the heat of an impassioned discussion, a “check your privilege” practitioner contort their definition of privilege to include the very, very, unprivileged individual who had taken a contrary view. > To present that opinion you must have evidence and support for your claims, of course, but you need not settle for a life of lazy rhetorical flourishes in pursuance of quick debate points. > Hold your position against the ad hominem, because it’s likely that when the “check your privilege” card has been played, your interlocutor has already run out of counterarguments and you’re winning.