• Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Important detail, regarding argumentum ad hominem (AAH): a lot of people incorrectly conflate the fallacy with insults, even if both things are independent. For example, let’s say that someone said “the Moon is made of green cheese”. Here are four possible answers:

    Replies With insult Without insult
    With AAH You’re a bloody muppet, thus the Moon is made of rocks and dust. You’re no astronomer, thus the Moon is made of rocks and dust.
    Without AAH Yeah, because there’s totally cheese orbiting Earth for a bazillion years, right? Bloody muppet. Cheese wouldn’t be orbiting Earth for so long without spoiling.

    This conflation between ad hominem and insults interacts really funny with sealioning. Sometimes you get the sea lion claiming that you’re using AAH because you lost patience with its stupidity, but they’re also prone to use non-insulting AAH.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The insults never add anything useful to arguments and still appeal to the same basic things as insults alone, even if they are accompanied by logically sound arguments. And while they don’t logically weaken a position, they can emotionally weaken it for those who recognize frustration reactions as a sign of weakness.

      Rage and anger might feel powerful, but they actually betray a sense of a lack of control. Trolls take advantage of this because it’s a sign they are getting to you. Plus it’s rare that people respond to insults by agreeing with the one who insulted them and the times when they do usually involve an appeal to authority (where the insulter has authority to back up their position and challenging them can have consequences).

      • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        If you’re measuring argument “strength” logically, the first paragraph is false; and if you’re doing it rhetorically, it’s misleading.

        On logical grounds, insults neither add nor subtract appeal to the argument. That can be seen in the example: at the core, the argument in the bottom left could be rephrased to remove the insult, and it would still convey the same reasoning. Emotional factors shouldn’t be considered on first place..

        And, on rhetorical grounds, insults can weaken or strengthen a position depending on the claim, context, and audience. (A good example of that would be the old “fuck off Nazi”.)

        for those who recognize frustration reactions as a sign of weakness. [plus the second paragraph]

        This is an audience matter, so it applies to the rhetorical strength of the argument, not the logical one: I don’t argument for the sake of assumers, and claims to recognise frustration out of how others convey an argument is assumer tier irrationality. As such, even if insults would weaken the argument for them, I don’t care.

        In fact, they’re perhaps the major reason why I personally would recur to insults - to discourage their participation, since assumers are as much of a burden as sea lions (for roughly the same reasons).

        If, however, you do argument for the benefit of this sort of trashy individual, be aware that even the assumers might react positively towards insults against a third party. Some will make shit up that you’re “weak” and “frustrated”; some, that you’re “strong” and “brave”. It’ll depend on the general acceptability of the claim that you’re making on first place.