Ad Hominem logical fallacy

February 3, 2005 7:19 PM

Ad Hominem logical fallacy: Attacking a person instead of their argument. Or, in this case, attacking them because of a perfectly valid comment.
posted by neckro23 to Bugs at 7:19 PM (27 comments total)

What are you, noting this for the record? Or do you think this requires action? Or are you a conservative simply defending S@L's right to be a ditto-head conservative and never be called on it? As far as I'm concerned, the ad hominem argument is S@L's to use in his defense - if he wants to - but there's no fucking site rule against committing said fallacy.
posted by scarabic at 7:26 PM on February 3, 2005

scarabic has it. Delete!
posted by Quartermass at 7:30 PM on February 3, 2005

Or are you a conservative simply defending S@L's right to be a ditto-head conservative and never be called on it?

scarabic, the rest of your comment is correct, that if steve wants to call out the ad hominem attack (which it more or less was, and ad hominem are fairly explicitly frowned upon around here), that's more or less his call.

But the sentence quoted above has little to do qith the incident in question. Pointing out the documented racism of a famous author is hardly a typical "conservative," thing to do. Although steve's vocal politics may have a part in explaining why some users feel safer ad homineming him than someone else.

And for the record, I'm not a conservative, but I'll defend steve's right to be whatever political stripe he wants to be around here.
posted by jonmc at 7:33 PM on February 3, 2005

defending S@L's right to be a ditto-head conservative and never be called on it?

My comment had nothing to do with being conservative or liberal or any other political ideologue.

Space Coyote, seeing my username made a knee-jerk assumption and now looks stupid.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:35 PM on February 3, 2005

That would be the Freeper Ken Burns documentary, Unforgivable Blackness that just ran on PBS.

Classic
posted by Quartermass at 7:36 PM on February 3, 2005

Actually I don't think that S@L is a mere dittohead, but he is a very visible conservative, and this rather pointless callout seemed, for a moment, to be just any excuse to defend him. I was trying to think of a reason someone would do so, and partisanship came to mind.

Apologies, S@L.
posted by scarabic at 7:41 PM on February 3, 2005

I've heard of any excuse to attack, but "any excuse to defend?"
posted by Krrrlson at 7:43 PM on February 3, 2005

Yeah, but you were right about this callout being pointless - and I think all of us - right, left or Canadian - can cross the partisan divide and agree on that.
posted by Quartermass at 7:43 PM on February 3, 2005

Yeah, I was confused by the trigger-finger hostility there as well. It took me a little while to figure where that "Jack London was a racist" assertion came from, but it definitely seems like legit complaint.
posted by LairBob at 7:44 PM on February 3, 2005

Yeah. Definitely seemed like the reaction was completely inappropriate. It's things like that that make me wish some days that we posted without usernames.
posted by rustcellar at 7:47 PM on February 3, 2005

Far too often, Paris and Steve will be making comments that aren't political at all, and then get railroaded with some political swipe. It's embarrassing.
posted by drezdn at 7:56 PM on February 3, 2005

I don't get this: http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/39277#843420

Steve@, for as much as I disagree with him, shows a consistency of thought that I admire.
posted by greasy_skillet at 7:58 PM on February 3, 2005

I'm not looking for an excuse to defend Steve; this is more about Space Coyote's disruption of the thread with what amounts to name-calling, for absolutely no reason.
posted by neckro23 at 7:59 PM on February 3, 2005

I find this sort of knee-jerk exchange embarrassing. If you can't manage to counter S@L's posts with links and data, it would be a good time to re-examine your beliefs or shut the fuck up. I value Steve's input here because it causes me to actually do a little research to prove him wrong. Without outspoken conservatives, reactionaries, and the occasional fascist we'll have no reason or opportunity to construct a cogent argument. It's easier to stop and think a minute before you hit post than it is to try to justify an idiotic outburst.
posted by Floydd at 8:00 PM on February 3, 2005

What Floydd said. Still, it seems obvious that there are clear reasons why certain folks and not others "get railroaded with some political swipe" after making non-political comments. It has more to do with tone and presentation than actual politics, I've noticed.

Still, what Floydd said.
posted by mediareport at 8:20 PM on February 3, 2005

Meh. You reap what you sow.
posted by felix betachat at 8:34 PM on February 3, 2005

What are you, noting this for the record? Or do you think this requires action? Or are you a conservative simply defending S@L's right to be a ditto-head conservative and never be called on it?

Perhaps he's pointing to something he thinks is destructive to reasoned discourse, that he would like to initiate a conversation about, so that others might do the very same thing less frequently in future.

Or: using Metatalk for the purpose for which it was intended.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:36 PM on February 3, 2005

--> Space Coyote, this is the part where you apologize to Steve, and where everyone then thinks more highly of you for having done so.

I'd wager the amount of my rather middlin' paycheck that an apology ain't going to happen on account of petty partisanship & intolerance. Knowing Steve is a political outsider around these parts is good enough reason for most to treat him like a doormat. SC will continue being smug, pretending this thread never happened, while Steve will go on being Steve and the likelihood of meeting in the middle will evaporate. I'd love to be wrong. C'mon, Space Coyote, prove us wrong.
posted by dhoyt at 9:02 PM on February 3, 2005

Far too often, Paris and Steve will be making comments that aren't political at all, and then get railroaded with some political swipe. It's embarrassing.

Maybe true. But it also reads pretty accurately as:

Far too often, Paris and Steve will derail a non-political thread with some political swipe. It's embarassing.

Not right maybe, but like felix said... reap what you sow and all...
posted by chundo at 9:26 PM on February 3, 2005

What the WonderChicken said.
posted by timeistight at 9:34 PM on February 3, 2005

using Metatalk for the purpose for which it was intended.

Mmmm. While condescendingly argued, not entirely convincing. I've already backed off where I stepped too far, but this is one weak callout.
posted by scarabic at 9:39 PM on February 3, 2005

I'm with my man scarabic on this one.

Not that he's really, you know, my man.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 9:53 PM on February 3, 2005

While condescendingly argued, not entirely convincing.

You caught me, you scamp!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:00 PM on February 3, 2005

My $0.02:

Once again, I'd just like to note that it'd be great to have more conservatives that argue rationally and politely on the blue.

Steve is indeed consistent, and has taken some unearned swipes. However, such as in this thread, he's taken many well-earned ones as well.

For the purposes of this callout, Space Coyote should indeed apologize.
posted by Vidiot at 10:20 PM on February 3, 2005

oh, can't we all agree that everyone here is a stupid fucking commie and move on?
posted by puke & cry at 10:41 PM on February 3, 2005

That's an embarrassingly stupid thing to have said.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:51 AM on February 4, 2005

Space Coyote, seeing my username made a knee-jerk assumption and now looks stupid.

So burned.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:41 AM on February 4, 2005