genuinely the hardest part of arguing with is explaining the difference between using an ad-hominem argument and just being extensively insulting. Not because it’s particularly hard to define an ad hominem argument and create examples, just because the are so deep set.
It’s also a deliberate obfuscation because so much discourse on isn’t about the intellectually honest search for the truth, it’s about getting community support by reinforcing the majority consensus, within which saying “Hey you insulted me no fair” makes you sound peevish and weak while saying “that’s an ad hominem therefore you are wrong” adds to the collective veneer of sophistication and helps head off any actual engagement with the content.
Learn the Art of Debate: The Ad Hominem Fallacy:
❌️ Ad hominem attack, weasels are still capable of making valid claims, however unlikely
✅ Reasonable induction from available evidence, not an ad hominem
genuinely the hardest part of arguing with
is explaining the difference between using an ad-hominem argument and just being extensively insulting. Not because it’s particularly hard to define an ad hominem argument and create examples, just because the 
are so deep set.
“I’m not saying you’re wrong BECAUSE you’re stupid, I’m saying you’re wrong AND you’re stupid.”
It’s also a deliberate obfuscation because so much discourse on
isn’t about the intellectually honest search for the truth, it’s about getting community support by reinforcing the majority consensus, within which saying “Hey you insulted me no fair” makes you sound peevish and weak while saying “that’s an ad hominem therefore you are wrong” adds to the collective veneer of sophistication and helps head off any actual engagement with the content.