9 Comments

Indeed this is a (false) attack on the speaker and not the facts stated. But it is intended to be more: Soros is declared OFF LIMITS to those not on the Left - lest we be racists. You cannot disagree with Soros' (and his hand-picked vassals') politics or you're an anti-Semite. You didn't even need to know Soros is a Jew to be guilty (I didn't - I would wager most didn't). Some dog whistle!

And you're absolutely correct, this is an argumentum ad hominem. But if you unpack EVERY progressive argument, you'll find a logical fallacy at its core. They use these "Jedi mind tricks" all the time. Because they work. On the weak minded. Don't be weak minded!

Expand full comment
author

Many logical fallacies work because most people aren't "trained" in them or in reasoned argument. This form of ad hominem is particularly insidious because it hits us in the "fairness" part of our brains, and we reflexively want to refute the accusation. Nobody likes to be called a racist, excepting perhaps the rare overt/unrepentant racist. It's why this form of ad hom is so evil, and why I think it needs its own name.

Expand full comment

Gimme a break, indeed! Speaking the unvarnished truth is not “racism” or “antisemitism.”

Expand full comment

Argumentum Ad Calumnia?

Expand full comment
author

If I translate that correctly, it's more generic than "racism"

Expand full comment

True. It's more of an "argument from false accusation"

Expand full comment

Argumentum ad Progenies

Argumentum ad Stirpes

Argumentum ad Prosapia

*Argumentum ad Proles*

Argumentum ad Propago

Argumentum ad Saeculum

Argumentum ad Domus

All of those have to do with race. I particularly like Argumentum ad Proles due to its Orwellian appearance.

Expand full comment

All that said, I love your "argument from hatred of others."

Expand full comment
author

ad Proles sounds cool, but would it convey "racism" to the average prole?

Expand full comment