Attacking the arguer substitutes for refuting arguments that challenge consensus.

Evidence

The Spinoza Agents (the Cold Rationalist equivalent of Gibson’s Turing Cops, who, unlike the Turing Police, are dedicated not to the curbing of AI but to its acceleration) report that a new and dangerously virulent form of artificial stupidity is spreading unchecked throughout k-space. This is a nasty combination of the ad hominem and straw man irrationalist mind viruses, provisionally codenamed “straw ad hominem”. This oedipalising idiocy proceeds thus: given that this argument challenges commonsense and what is consensually accepted, the person who presented it must be [insert allegedly derogatory remark about mental health/marital status/ upbringing here], therefore anything they say is to be dismissed. No need to refute their arguments substantively, natch. … The SAs warn: “this is unusually moronic even given the low standards we expect of you jumped-up monkeys. Watch it.” — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 2389

Categorization

• DEFINE: Fisher wittily names and anatomizes the ‘straw ad hominem,’ an irrationalist move combining two fallacies: dismissing an argument solely because it departs from consensus.
• CANDY: The invented compound fallacy ‘straw ad hominem’ is a shareable, memorable category useful for naming real conversational moves.
• XREF: connects to: Challenging consensus triggers dismissal of the arguer rather than the argument — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished…, 2389; Standard argumentation guides fail because opponents are often unwilling to engage factually — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice: How to Communicate…, 7; Accusing opponents of ‘sympathy’ is a rhetorical tool for redirecting debate — Evelyn Alsultany, Arabs and Muslims in the Media: Race…, 876 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Challenging consensus triggers dismissal of the arguer rather than the argument #corroborates (0.95) — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 2389
• An ad hominem attack shifts the focus from the argument to the arguer’s character #expands (0.88) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1049
• Accusing opponents of ‘sympathy’ is a rhetorical tool for redirecting debate #exemplifies (0.78) — Evelyn Alsultany, Arabs and Muslims in the Media, 876
• Debaters can demand written evidence instead of refuting unsourced claims themselves. #exemplifies (0.76) — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 817
• Question-based debate techniques can backfire by humiliating the rhetorical rather than testing the belief #exemplifies (0.75) — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 242
• Denying confrontation can itself be a deliberate strategic displacement of an argument’s horizon #expands (0.74) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 80
• White supremacy’s defenses regenerate across knowledge domains when individual arguments fail #expands (0.73) — Robert P. Jones, White Too Long, 61
• Standard argumentation guides fail because opponents are often unwilling to engage factually #qualifies (0.72) — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 7