Breaking News: Someone began their Twitter post with a “fun fact.”
I’ve noticed that very seldom is the fact, fun, or that factual.
But as I was reading the very descriptive prose regarding my scrotum after I brought this up with the original poster, a thought occurred to me. No really, thoughts do occur to me.
People who know nothing about the people they are talking to (some rando on Twitter) are telling others who they are (ad hominem attacks) because they refuse to completely buy into “experts” telling who they are (the unwashed masses) and what is best for them (to mask, lockdown, and get an experimental mRNA vaccine.)
There is a link.
If this were a mathematical equation. It might look something like this.
I believe in Fact A because this is what the experts tell me.
Fact A+Expert Endorsement=Truth.
In this case Fact A is a “new disease” that is unknown how deadly it is.
How did we even get Fact A? Something out of China? This is when it first hit my radar, or it could have been sooner. All I know is, this isn’t how deadly pandemics work.
The news usually lags behind reality. So me being told it is a deadly disease despite all evidence to the contrary means Fact A is suspect.
For context. News stories were always telling me from time to time about the imminent danger of sniper shootings, pitbull attacks, the Zika virus, some orange dictator, systemic racism, and global warming that since I was a kid was going to kill us in 10 years.
Based on this, guess how ready I was to believe anything the mainstream media said.
One reason why you don’t see me making recommendations on people’s lives such as health advice is that I know I don’t know better than they do how to conduct their lives. What makes me feel happy and prosperous will not make others feel or be the same way. Similarly, one size does not fit all in terms of health either.
That’s the point.
It’s also another reason why I don’t call people names. As much as I’d like to create nicknames for others, I just won’t do it. Because not only do I not think I know better than them how to conduct their lives, I don’t know them. But what about those that do? Why are they so sure I am selfish? Why do they think I am an "idiot” an “anti-vaxxer" and a “misinformation spreader?”
The experts told them so.
Many “facts” of the narrative are incumbent upon this. The facts are not predicated upon actual information because if such were true, would not then information that counters it also be equally as valid or worthy of consideration? But, the truth is that it is not “The facts” themselves that determine validity, but the source that underwrites those facts.
This has to be a tough way to live.
At the same time, it doesn’t change reality.
For instance, in telling people the fact that masks don’t work, I will very often get their personal stories. Their mother is sick, they are immune compromised, and they work in healthcare where they are in constant contact with vulnerable people. It could very well be that in their line of work, masks are mandated.
That still doesn’t change the fact that masks or respirators don’t work. That still doesn’t change that the mRNA experimental vaccines are ineffective or worse, actually harmful.
It doesn’t change reality.
I think when they tell me these things about their lives, they think this makes everything different. They are showing a blend here of what was (experts’ endorsement of Fact A) with their experience (Them having to adhere to restrictions). Their experience again does not prove A.
They must think I will say “well in that case, masks work.”
Or they want me to think “This is a dangerous novel disease.”
Is it any coincidence that roughly around the same period we get the information that there were 17 million dead from vaccine injury and over 20 million sufferers of “Long Covid?” Of course not.
My point is, that people who were told by others that there was something dangerous must believe inherently that things other people say not only are true (if it aligns with their thinking) and thus subconsciously or consciously also assert that they in turn can know more about people than they do. And thus, when their thinking on the subject is pushed back against, they think these people must somehow be defective or wrong in some way. After all, the experts know better which means they by association know better.
All roads lead to narcissism.
Everyone can’t be awesome, can they? The mere thought of superlative means that there is a hierarchy. So if one person is awesome, then it follows that the only people who are awesome are those who align with this thinking.
So another thing that follows is that if you disagree with someone predicated on their belief that the experts got it right, you are calling them stupid. Compound this with the fact that people are indeed calling other people stupid or sheeple and it is no wonder such a common response to “masks don’t work.” or commenting on someone’s use of rhetoric by preempting a post with “fun fact” and you are suddenly in Ad Hominemville.
My response is to point this out.
And I get a lot of pushback. Our culture, especially online culture, is predicated on trash-talking. And in circles of us guys, it is standard to include occasional ribbing in our discourse. In debates or arguments though, when you don’t know the person, how constructive are insulting and/or ad hominem attacks/fallacies?
Sadly, the first thing we have to do is establish if we are having a debate or argument or not. Are they even the same thing?
Here are the definitions of those terms.
I guess, an argument could mean simply a debate on the character of the person.
In that case, would such a debate be better taken to another thread, and not one where the assertion is that masks work, or we should all isolate if we test positive for Covid, or that vaccines work? Heck, I have even tried to conduct an argument on the definition of anti-vaxxer and “conspiracy theorist” which usually devolve into…you guessed it. More ad hominem attacks.
The pushback continues. I’ve gotten people to send me this meme as proof that ad hominem attacks are dependent upon sentence structure.
The function of an ad hominem attack or fallacy is to avoid the substance of the argument, but rather attack the person. The term “ad hominem” means “to the person." So despite the sentence structure offered above, both are ad hominem attacks.
Yes, but does that mean insults as well? Without looking up references, which I will do in a short bit. Let’s show some work. Insults include things like.
“You are selfish.” Not sure how this is proof against or for vaccines or masks working. But nevertheless, this is a standard response when already refuting the “science™.” But it is an effective detractor because we are no longer talking about mask efficacy, but either we are talking about proof that I am selfish or not, or what constitutes selfish behavior. I always try to keep it relevant to the topic. My response usually includes this:
“Not being selfish is not lying to people. I would be lying if I said/demonstrated masks worked by wearing one.
”Not being selfish also means not lying to people about how deadly a disease is by once again, warranting a mask or any other silly restrictions to deter it.”
I guess there could be a distinction between attack and fallacy. But how would a person otherwise interpret any comments on a character other than an attack? I see them as logical fallacies though as many of them are predicated on a false knowledge of reality.
My going outside without a mask is showing others that I do not consider them to be a threat or a significant vector for infection.
Regardless of whether we are arguing ad hominem fallacy vs. attack, injecting name-calling insults, or other attacks; anything other than the substance of the argument being proposed, is not constructive to the outcome of the argument.
But these attacks on the meaning of what is an “ad hominem” logical fallacy are ultimately a rationalization for their continued use of them.
I guess they are effective in that they disrupt logical argumentation. And maybe that ultimately is the point. They want us to “shut up and comply” and that is what it comes down to, doesn’t it?
Listen to what we say because we represent “the experts” and all the experts agree, that you need to shut up and comply.
How about, no?
“No.” Gets my vote.