Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. (Wikipedia)
It used to be that an ad hominem attack during an argument was a (weak) defensive move, but that is no longer the case… especially on social media. Don’t like someone’s ideas? Attack their character, their physical features, their business acumen, or even their choice of clothing. As for the point they are making, the very thing that was upsetting, this is not dismissed with any points of merit. No, instead it is simply assumed that the opposing view is already a lost argument with no need to fact check or provide counter evidence or opposing rationalization.
I’m not sure when this became so acceptable? It is a weak and counterproductive approach to disagreeing with someone’s ideas, and yet it is pervasive on all social media platforms. While ad hominem attacks used to be used as a poor, defensive response, now it is done as a knee jerk reaction with little thought as to how it undermines any points made in conjunction with it. While ad hominem attacks used to be used by weak people avoiding having to put forth a weak argument, now it is used as fuel to feed the rage that social media can invite. ‘Here is my point, and here is a personal attack I’ll add for good measure.’
Ultimately, here is the problem, an ad hominem attack is literally an argument that preaches only to the converted. It undermines any valuable information or argument that is shared along with the attack. Sure it scores a point with the people who agree with the person on the attack, but it does the opposite with those that disagree, those that the attacker would actually want to convince otherwise. Think that through to its logical conclusion: Ad hominem attacks are great for convincing people who are already agreeable, while angering or being fully dismissed by those that disagree. What does this accomplish?
____________
Addendum: Sarcasm works the same way, pandering to those who need not be convinced, while being dismissed by those that it would be desirable to influence.
Also, this brings me back to the post: Ideas on a Spectrum.
David, this reminds me of Venkatesh Rao’s post on the Internet of Beefs. He too questions what is actually gained. The intriguing thing though is that he also argues that ‘we are all already interpolated’ (to borrow from Althusser.)
Also on: Read Write Collect
Thanks for sharing Aaron!
I can see the Internet of Beefs playing out, although unlike the suggestion that,
“A beef must be conducted with visible skill and honor (though codes of honor may be different on the different sides), and in public view.”
… I think Ad Hominem attacks really disregard honour of any kind.
I’m reminded of 3 early morning radio hosts that my wife listens to in the morning, leaving her clock radio in while getting ready. They play this game of one of them saying they like something, another of them opposing the idea, and the third bouncing back and forth, depending on the last thing said, “Oh, I see your point, ok, I hadn’t thought of that!”
It’s a ritualized banter with rules of engagement. I find it tedious more than entertaining. But the rules would fade quickly if the three of them switched to personal attacks. These attacks would undermine the ‘beef’ of the argument.
I would argue that Venkatesh Rao‘s beef is a step up from the disappointingly slanderous, personal attacks that seem to be considered as acceptable ‘discourse’ now.