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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
I want to engage here. The “Looking for outrage” troupe, certainly can be used as an ad hominem. However there is an interesting and important moral debate that is on a spectrum (and that point is moving) regarding what is offensive and what is valuable as a discussion. /2
-
Not that i am the arbitrator of such things or think i or any individual should be. Progression is important. Refining our morals is important. Peoples rights to safety and individual expressions is important. Though when i look at my girls... /2
- Show replies
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.