Ad hominem and left wing activists.

[Nobody]

Most of my political views line with left wing ones. I approve welfare programs, investments in public education and health care, this kind of stuff. However, some people here in Brazil are just fanatical about it, and will call anyone who disagrees with them, even slightly, fascists or ignorant bourgeois spawn (yes, this one is a very common insult here). Then, on the internet, I saw that this behavior isn't exclusively ours, seeing how places like tumblr (or even neogaf), known for being very left winged (for american standards) have people doing the same thing, calling people out for because of their "privileges", rather than pointing out the real reason why their argument is right (which it might not even be), or simply offending others, because they disagree with their views.

Why some of them can't just have a rational argument and have to attack others for their opinion all the time? My college is full of people like this, and this makes me really upset, seeing how ignoring others opinions because of how they live or were raised is completely against what they politically believe (that all should be equal). I just fell like they're a bunch of hypocrites.

this topic is about personal experience. I don't have any evidence, and if you never experienced that, feel free to disagree.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Nobody

[Parrhesia]

Some political people are unreasonable what a surprise

Literally every political viewpoint has wankers attached. The left has soft-left green yuppies who drink chai, the secular right has conservative pseudo-theocrats, libertarians have the Tea Party, the centre has 'no political party can accurately represent my viewpoints ' dipshits, feminists have radicals, socialists have communists and hard conservatives have fascists.

[Nobody]

Some political people are unreasonable what a surprise

Literally every political viewpoint has wankers attached. The left has soft-left green yuppies who drink chai, the secular right has conservative pseudo-theocrats, libertarians have the Tea Party, the centre has 'no political party can accurately represent my viewpoints ' dipshits, feminists have radicals, socialists have communists and hard conservatives have fascists.

This topic isn't restricted to the USA, as I, myself, am not american.

And this topic was focused on left winged people because how often they use the ad hominem, more than everyone else, even though they were supposed to do it LESS, since their political views says that everyone should be treated equally.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Nobody

[Parrhesia]

I'm Australian. What does America have to do with anything in what I said?

Also thank you for totally missing my point. Literally every political viewpoint has dipshits. Like can you actually give me evidence of what you mean, because I'm sure it's regrettably not unique.

[Nobody]

Of course every political viewpoints have unreasonable people, just look at the people against the public heath care in the US. I'd argue they're actually worst than the leftist ones.

What I'm asking is why the leftist use the ad hominem more, when they were supposed to do it less.

This might have to do with the fact that we don't really have any right winged party here, and if you're anything right of the center, you're considered to be from the extreme right. Just as an exemple, if the democratic party was from here, they'd be considered a right wing party, not even central-right.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Nobody

[Parrhesia]

Like can you actually give me evidence of what you mean, because I'm sure it's regrettably not unique.

I'm saying these words for a reason.

[Nobody]

I'm saying these words for a reason.

I can't because you can't read in portuguese. If you could, I'd be able to give you at least a dozen, which wouldn't be valid anyway, since they'd be just anecdotal evidence. This topic is about personal experience. If you haven't experienced this, feel free to disagree.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Nobody

[dondon151]

This topic isn't restricted to the USA, as I, myself, am not american.

And this topic was focused on left winged people because how often they use the ad hominem, more than everyone else, even though they were supposed to do it LESS, since their political views says that everyone should be treated equally.

i wouldn't be so sure that left-wingers have an exclusive claim to ad hominem. as furet points out, everyone does this.

the issue with left-wingers comes up when they are both strongly opinionated and uneducated when it comes to applying rhetoric or knowing the definitions of words such as "fascist," "bourgeois," etc.

[BK-201]

Ad hominems are used universally by all groups once you increase the size by a significant amount. I'm sure it would take absolutely no effort to find examples of right wing activists using similar language. Do you have any evidence of left wing activists using it more? All I see in your post is that you decided to go to a left wing dominated website and from there concluded left wing activists use ad hominem more... Do you not see the fallacy in that?

I'm not buying the argument that left wing activists use ad hominem more often or at least not more often enough to be statistically significant. I don't buy the premise of the post because it's completely unsupported.

[Rehab]

^There's a lot of pressure on and in, for example, some feminist circles to preface statements about violence against women attributed to men with "some men," and also a lot of resistance to it.

Here's a (tumblr, natch) example

I think I get what Nobody's saying, actually. I think I may indeed listen to a lot of voices like those, and sometimes continue to do so despite finding their tone/methods of delivery flawed, because they may still have things to say that are news to me and that I want/feel obligated to hear more about.

I think that people given to frequent ad hominem, very much including left-leaning individuals (like, yes, some very loud voices on tumblr), might be so inclined because, well, they're angry. They may have experienced or witnessed a lot of blowback in trying to discuss or make a direct impact on the issues close to them, or they may have heard what seems to them like deafening silence on an issue that they think should be of interest to everybody. To other people, this can look like they're lashing out at any perceived difference in opinion, but to them it may feel like righteous, justified anger, and it may be coming from a place that's used to being shouted down or ignored. They may actually feel like it's them against an unjust world, and there may actually be some truth and value in those feelings.

I think that one large problem with using that sense of justification, with being intentionally rough and accusatory in how they're delivering a message, is that, as other posters have noted, it's not exactly the province solely of any one set of values or arguments. There are feminists and activists fighting for the just treatment of disadvantaged and abused minority groups of people, who sometimes cast direct aspersions on others who disagree with them on certain points or who simply aren't in those groups, who may feel and say they're justified in doing so, and, again, they may even be right in some respects, but there are also religious zealots and racists and chauvinists and all manner of parties who may hold directly opposing (or totally unrelated) views who, though the point of their arguments may be entirely different and entirely less worthwhile, can muster a sense of moral outrage that may look very similar, and who may even believe it just as intensely themselves. To an outsider or an undecided party looking at both sides, even one who doesn't believe that the mere fact that somebody is committing ad-hominem is justification to immediately disqualify their entire argument, it may be harder for them to make sense of it all than it would've been if nobody had been called a name, or had their character impugned.

I also think it's just not a good way to bring somebody around to agreeing with or acknowledging one's point. Devoid of context, even less so, obviously. It may galvanize somebody who already agrees to action, but if, say, somebody who could otherwise be convinced of the merits of an argument only ended up hearing

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LITERALLY BAD PEOPLE IN AN OBJECTIVE SENSE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[and yes, I have seen such a phrase used, and by somebody who didn't actually go into detail on their argument, in more than one instance]

then, well, it might have just gotten harder to get that person to listen to the context.

Further, it seems pretty hard to me to commit an ad-hominem that doesn't throw somebody under the bus who doesn't deserve it. Nobody has all the knowledge necessary to understand every issue enough to come to an informed position, and there are inevitably going to be people who look like they're being insensitive assholes who really could just use some help. Actually getting social justice problems solved is probably going to require some convincing of people who don't look like natural converts, which seems like a really bitter pill to swallow for some people I've listened to.

I don't really believe the people I have in mind use ad-hominem significantly more or worse than anybody else anywhere does, though, to be sure.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Rehab

[Nobody]

Ad hominems are used universally by all groups once you increase the size by a significant amount. I'm sure it would take absolutely no effort to find examples of right wing activists using similar language. Do you have any evidence of left wing activists using it more? All I see in your post is that you decided to go to a left wing dominated website and from there concluded left wing activists use ad hominem more... Do you not see the fallacy in that?

I'm not buying the argument that left wing activists use ad hominem more often or at least not more often enough to be statistically significant. I don't buy the premise of the post because it's completely unsupported.

I'm talking more about the people on my college than people on the internet. And yes, it's certainly easy to find other groups using ad hominem, I just don't see it happening as much.

I'll just quote myself:

This topic is about personal experience. If you haven't experienced this, feel free to disagree.

I'm not saying it necessarily the truth, I'm just saying that it's just the way I feel.

Maybe the reason why I see more leftist people using Ad Hominem is just the fact that where I live, especially on my college, there are much more left winged people than following other ideologies.

The fact that I agree with their ideologies, but even them they seem to love to bash my social group (brazilian upper middle class) as if all of us were ignorant assholes who only care about ourselves might also be another reason their Ad Hominem bothers me so much.

^There's a lot of pressure on and in, for example, some feminist circles to preface statements about violence against women attributed to men with "some men," and also a lot of resistance to it.

Here's a (tumblr, natch) example

This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about. I hate the generalization so much. It's not like I have anything in common with those man, other than being a man. I'm not their "brother", they're just other people I don't have any relation to. Judging people by their gender/social class/race/whatever is just bad, and it contradict what they support in first place: that all genders/races/social classes should be treated equally.

It literally makes me want to avoid people, knowing that they will think the worst of me before even knowing me.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Nobody

[eclipse]

Listen to those views you agree with. Then listen to the opposite side of the spectrum. Then listen to something that you're somewhat indifferent to (this can be more than just politics). Do you think that the things that you're complaining about are better/worse when you listen to different views?

(this is for a reason, I promise)

[I.M. Gei]

I'm talking more about the people on my college than people on the internet. And yes, it's certainly easy to find other groups using ad hominem, I just don't see it happening as much.

I'll just quote myself:

I'm not saying it necessarily the truth, I'm just saying that it's just the way I feel.

Maybe the reason why I see more leftist people using Ad Hominem is just the fact that where I live, especially on my college, there are much more left winged people than following other ideologies.

The fact that I agree with their ideologies, but even them they seem to love to bash my social group (brazilian upper middle class) as if all of us were ignorant assholes who only care about ourselves might also be another reason their Ad Hominem bothers me so much.

Yeah but that's an anecdote nobody but you can verify

[Blademaster!]

From my general experience, I've seen both sides make ad hominem claims before, however the "left wing" people I've spoken with are more likely to use a larger variety of terms (racist, homophobe, redneck, whatever) than right wing people who just go "liberals." I've certainly met more left wingers like this, however I've also just met more left wing thinking people as well in my lifetime. The left wing is generally more "politically correct" thanks to the large presence of left wing thinking in the media (at least in the USA), so they often think they don't have to make in depth arguments since they can just rely on some kind of ad populum and then call you whatever for it knowing they have more people to back up their opinion.

Then again, I think people who support a more unpopular opinion usually come across as more knowledgeable on the subject since if they didn't know what they're arguing, no one would listen to them.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Blademaster!

[shadykid]

From my general experience, I've seen both sides make ad hominem claims before, however the "left wing" people I've spoken with are more likely to use a larger variety of terms (racist, homophobe, redneck, whatever) than right wing people who just go "liberals." I've certainly met more left wingers like this, however I've also just met more left wing thinking people as well in my lifetime. The left wing is generally more "politically correct" thanks to the large presence of left wing thinking in the media (at least in the USA), so they often think they don't have to make in depth arguments since they can just rely on some kind of ad populum and then call you whatever for it knowing they have more people to back up their opinion.

Then again, I think people who support a more unpopular opinion usually come across as more knowledgeable on the subject since if they didn't know what they're arguing, no one would listen to them.

are you sure you're in the USA?

[I.M. Gei]

Yeah, most news media (e.g. most AM radio, TV stations, more established newspapers) in the US aren't left-wing at all (unless you're like Andy Schlafly and make Conservapedia because you think Wikipedia is too liberal, or if you join the Tea Party Community because you think getting banned from Facebook for saying the n-word too much or threatening to kill Obama is persecution, or if you define "left-wing" as anything to the left of the Tea Party); that statement is part of a narrative put forth by the far-right in an attempt to pump up its base and legitimize itself

Some political people are unreasonable what a surprise

Literally every political viewpoint has wankers attached. The left has soft-left green yuppies who drink chai, the secular right has conservative pseudo-theocrats, libertarians have the Tea Party, the centre has 'no political party can accurately represent my viewpoints ' dipshits, feminists have radicals, socialists have communists and hard conservatives have fascists.

I'll note here that the Tea Party isn't really libertarian; they pretty quickly unmasked themselves to be pretty far-right on social issues too (their chairwoman in the House is Michelle Bachmann, a theocrat telling us that the shutdown means that God's End Times are coming, and their very first bill after winning control in 2010 was...not on jobs or taxes, but restricting abortion)

Edited October 14, 2013 by Soran Ibrahim

[Blademaster!]

are you sure you're in the USA?

Yes, since when has the right wing ever had more media presence than the left in the past few years? Last I checked Fox news is the only major right wing news channel, and it's generally the most viewed news channel for that reason when compared to left wing news channels like CNN, MSNBC, etc.

[I.M. Gei]

Yes, since when has the right wing ever had more media presence than the left in the past few years? Last I checked Fox news is the only major right wing news channel, and it's generally the most viewed news channel for that reason when compared to left wing news channels like CNN, MSNBC, etc.

[citation needed]

Please provide proof that CNN and MSNBC or the so-called mainstream media are "left-wing."

Edited October 14, 2013 by Soran Ibrahim

[Blademaster!]

[citation needed]

Please provide proof that CNN and MSNBC or the so-called mainstream media are "left-wing."

So I take it you don't need proof for why Fox, aka the MSNBC of the right, is right wing then? Just read this, go outside, take any kind of current events class in High school/college, or go too any political forum and talk with someone. The thought that the left wing has more presence in the US media than the right is something that has been documented in multiple studies since the 80s and has been at least a popular opinion among the citizens of the USA since 2002 according to gallup polls. The fact that someone is saying I'm not from America for thinking this makes me question whether or not they're from America since it's such a popular opinion among the citizens, even if you do think it's nothing but right wing propaganda. I mean, MSNBC has literally come out and said that they are a liberal news station and even made it their news slogan.

[shadykid]

So I take it you don't need proof for why Fox, aka the MSNBC of the right, is right wing then? Just read this, go outside, take any kind of current events class in High school/college, or go too any political forum and talk with someone. The thought that the left wing has more presence in the US media than the right is something that has been documented in multiple studies since the 80s and has been at least a popular opinion among the citizens of the USA since 2002 according to gallup polls. The fact that someone is saying I'm not from America for thinking this makes me question whether or not they're from America since it's such a popular opinion among the citizens, even if you do think it's nothing but right wing propaganda. I mean, MSNBC has literally come out and said that they are a liberal news station and even made it their news slogan.

I am admittedly honestly shocked that Fox News has been so successful at playing the "liberal media" card that so many people believe it seriously

just take a look at coverage of the shutdown/debt ceiling lately, the media's too chicken to call out Republicans for playing their little game

and yes, it is right wing propaganda

Edited October 14, 2013 by shadykid

[Nobody]

Yes, since when has the right wing ever had more media presence than the left in the past few years? Last I checked Fox news is the only major right wing news channel, and it's generally the most viewed news channel for that reason when compared to left wing news channels like CNN, MSNBC, etc.

FOX news is a extremely right winged channel, to the point of being batshit insane. Also, most american channels are also right winged, at least to some extent. Yes, including CNN.

Actually, left wing is basically nonexistent in american politics or media. The democratic party is a centre party, arguably a centre-right one.

Listen to those views you agree with. Then listen to the opposite side of the spectrum. Then listen to something that you're somewhat indifferent to (this can be more than just politics). Do you think that the things that you're complaining about are better/worse when you listen to different views?

(this is for a reason, I promise)

Ok, I'll try this:

The opposite end of the spectrum is way worse, that's true, and I would be really bothered if they're happened a lot, but they're so rare here that I almost never see it, but it really is bad.

Something I'm indifferent about: people offending/beating each other because of sport teams, particularly soccer: It's pretty bad, and I see no reason for anyone to do that.

Yeah, the people I'm complaining about are not worst than the others at all, if anything they're much better. It's just that I see them much more (well, than the opposite end of the spectrum. People offending each other because of sport teams is something I see all the time).

Edited October 14, 2013 by Nobody

[shadykid]

FOX news is a extremely right winged channel, to the point of being batshit insane. Also, most american channels are also right winged, at least to some extent. Yes, including CNN.

Actually, left wing is basically nonexistent in american politics or media. The democratic party is a centre party, arguably a centre-right one.

on top of this, even on MSNBC the only real left-wing stuff is late at night, with Maddow/Hayes

[Blademaster!]

I am admittedly honestly shocked that Fox News has been so successful at playing the "liberal media" card that so many people believe it seriously

just take a look at coverage of the shutdown/debt ceiling lately, the media's too chicken to call out Republicans for playing their little game

That's because FOX news isn't the only one showing that such is fact(LOL at it being propaganda, sounds like you've been a victim of some yourself if you've never even heard of this before/are genuinely shocked at this), you have a slew of other political scientists and media watch groups claiming that such is the case for several decades now, hence why it's become such a prevalent thought among the American people for over a decade. And given that so many young people nowadays are democrats/liberals, why would you be shocked at all that such is the case? Also, I don't know what news you've been looking at, but I've seen CNN call out the republican party for the whole debt spectacle, and there are certainly more people in the US blaming republican's(though it's really the Tea Parties fault) over the issue than democrats/Obama anyway.

[shadykid]

That's because FOX news isn't the only one showing that such is fact(LOL at it being propaganda, sounds like you've been a victim of some yourself if you've never even heard of this before/are genuinely shocked at this), you have a slew of other political scientists and media watch groups claiming that such is the case for several decades now, hence why it's become such a prevalent thought among the American people for over a decade. And given that so many young people nowadays are democrats/liberals, why would you be shocked at all that such is the case? Also, I don't know what news you've been looking at, but I've seen CNN call out the republican party for the whole debt spectacle, and there are certainly more people in the US blaming republican's(though it's really the Tea Parties fault) over the issue than democrats/Obama anyway.

CNN is the poster child for "both sides are the same" coverage, it's where the whole Wolf Blitzer meme came from in the first place

and while it may be mostly in the Tea Party, the truth is if Boehner wasn't a wimp he would've already called a vote and disregarded them

(hilariously, the waiting has cost the Republicans, but that's another topic)

edit: oh and more importantly, try telling me how the media is liberal

you won't find much beyond perception

Edited October 15, 2013 by shadykid

[eclipse]

Ok, I'll try this:

The opposite end of the spectrum is way worse, that's true, and I would be really bothered if they're happened a lot, but they're so rare here that I almost never see it, but it really is bad.

Something I'm indifferent about: people offending/beating each other because of sport teams, particularly soccer: It's pretty bad, and I see no reason for anyone to do that.

Yeah, the people I'm complaining about are not worst than the others at all, if anything they're much better. It's just that I see them much more (well, than the opposite end of the spectrum. People offending each other because of sport teams is something I see all the time).

Each side has something to contribute:

- The side you support (left): The reason why this topic exists

- The side you don't support (right): From what you posted, you'd probably be more bothered if they were the ones painting everything with a broad brush

- The side that you don't care about (sports): Even if it's something that you have no personal interest in, you still have an opinion on it

If I had to guess, I'd say your problem is with how people express themselves, instead of what they're saying. Unfortunately, the only person you have absolute control over is yourself. While I don't think it's a bad thing to facepalm at the antics of others, I wouldn't lose any sleep over them/force them to change. When people can't appeal with logic, they appeal to emotion. I think you'd end up giving some of them headaches if you were to truly question their beliefs. . .but whether or not you want to do this is up to you.