Is ad hominem the problem?

I thank Briar Rose for introducing this term into my vocabulary. Coming from the peer reviewed scientific arena, it is beyond my experience and my English teachers (late 40s) were remiss in not teaching it, particularly as debating was part of the curriculum. Anyhow, I don’t feel too bad; my B.A., B.Litt. daughter didn’t know the term either.

It can be defined as ‘appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think’, as well as ‘attacking an author rather than the argument’.

OLO strings are full of ad hominem comment, which detracts from their appeal. I certainly tend to ‘give up’ when there is too much of it, particularly when two ad hominem types attack each other and destroy objectivity and hurt the argument.

Which brings me to the point: Is the uselessness of ad hominem comment the real reason why commentators and sponsors give up?

If this is part of the explanation, the question then arises as to how administrators edit their blog and apply rules to discourage or prevent it – without exposing themselves to accusations of bias.

So Graham. you face a conundrum. I will be interested to see how you resolve it. Good luck, because OLO is too valuable to lose.

Hi Beef, I think it depends how the ad hom is applied. From a rhetorical point of view it can be reasonable to attack the credibility of the writer within the area being argued. So, if I'm arguing against a mining tax, for example, it could be relevant that I own mining shares.

The problem arises when your only argument is that I own mining shares. And then there is a further problem if the allegation makes strident accusations.

So I wouldn't have a problem with someone saying that they think someone is wrong, and here are the logical reasons, and aren't they letting their views be unduly influenced by something to do with their employment, for example. But to just dismiss what they say because of who they have earned money from or what organisation they belong to isn't really acceptable.

I took a comment down a while back that lambasted an author for being Catholic and suggested that she go out with her boyfriend and make babies rather than writing and said nothing else.

If the post had made some logical points, put those points in the context of her Catholicism and hadn't offensively suggested she go and get laid, then it might have survived.

Accusations of bad faith, such as lying, aren't allowed to stand, although you can make an accusation that what someone has said is wrong (intention to deceive being the distinguishing factor). And I generally view character assessments, such as that someone is a hypocrite or narcissist, as being better removed.

However, you have to bear in mind that the site works on complaint moderation. Sometimes I never know that something I would remove has been posted, which can look like inconsistency, but is really just ignorance.

Graham,
my sympathy for your predicament (and I shall see about a modest consideration). I'm bound to say at the outset however that, being a student of the Enlightenment, I don't believe you're one of its children--based on our admittedly slight acquaintance.
That doesn't alter the fact, though, that this situation is despicable and that the so-called freedom of the press is the same Romantic lie in the internet age as it's always been.
Unlike, I suspect, the majority of posters to this sight, I have no illusions about the ordered-artificiality of our culture, wherein so-called opinion is almost universally second-hand and stereotypical. This is of course what the advertisers want, especially corporate peace-keepers like banks who systematically fleece us, get bailed out and patronise us with equal insincerity.
But the internet is supposed to be the ultimate in free-market ideology, is it not? And a great many posters like nothing more than to poor scorn on the ABC, which is in fact a last bastion of journalistic integrity. Though populism rules and the constant campaign against Aunty (playing into the hands of government) will prevail in the end, and private interests will lower her hem.
For my part, there is nothing worth preserving about our decadent and self-righteously opinionated society, and I despise the self-infatuated gays just as much as the conservative preservers of our bogus traditions. Indeed I despise the Greens for betraying their constituents in the interests of a politically-correct beat-up and free-sex as consolation prize.

I think you should make a national issue of this, Graham. Publish this outrage far and wide and I suspect you'll get all the advertising dollars you need. Sink or swim.

I am not sure one could label the ANZ and IBM as Stalinists.

The publicity would also be a shot in the arm. You might find yourself knocking backers back!

Absolutely, Squeers.

Graham - the hallmark of "survivors" is that they have the facility to fashion opportunities out of setbacks.

And there is a principle at stake here!