I was puzzled by this trope from defenders of people like Louis CK. I don't often venture into topics like this (when I'm back to work and my Twitter activity falls to normal you'll see), but when I do someone inevitably accuses me of "looking for things to be outraged by."1/ https://twitter.com/GenericMets/status/1080203658829152256 …
-
-
The purpose of the "pharma shill" gambit is to discredit the critic of quackery by claiming he's secretly in the pay of big pharma. The idea is that he's only saying what he's saying for money; i.e., that he's insincere. It's a crude and obvious ad hominem fallacy. 3/
Show this thread -
The parallel to the pharma shill gambit became clear after a little thought, as did the parallel to accusing people who criticize racist or misogynistic speech of "virtue signaling." The idea is to suggest the criticism being responded to was insincere. Here's how. 4/
Show this thread -
Accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is an accusation of insincerity due to motivation based more on seeking approval of one's peers (presumably the "politically correct" lefties being sneered at) than on genuine disapproval and outrage. 5/
Show this thread -
Similarly, accusing someone of "looking for things to be outraged by" is an accusation of insincerity based on motivation involving enjoying outrage for outrage's sake rather than one based on actual disapproval and outrage. 6/
Show this thread -
All three gambits (the pharma shill gambit, the virtue signaling gambit, and the outrage junkie gambit) are ad hominems. They seek to discredit an argument not by attacking the argument itself but but discrediting the person making the argument. 7/
Show this thread -
All three gambits are based on portraying the critic as insincere in his or her criticism, whatever the reason for insincerity. 8/
Show this thread -
Ironically, I've seen a fair number of people who self-identify as skeptics use the virtue signaling and/or outrage junkie gambits, particularly fans of prominent skeptics credibly accused of sexual misconduct, but also fans of people like Jordan Peterson or Louis CK. 9/
Show this thread -
I wonder if they even realize that, in using these as hominems, they're behaving just like antivaxers. They're just using different ad hominems. Probably not, which just goes to show that we all have our blind spots. 10/10
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.