There is a logical fallacy formally known as ad hominem which consists of discrediting an argument based on the known character and other arguments and positions of the person making the argument. It implies that the argument is suspect from the start simply due to who is putting it forward. While this is recognized as strictly being fallacious logically, there seems to be a widespread attitude today that as a practical matter ad hominem is a useful heuristic; that arguments put forward by people considered intellectually or even morally bankrupt should be viewed with suspicion. Or even that conceding anything to someone of an opposing viewpoint is counterproductive in the context of an ideological war.
What are some examples you know of of “it’s a shame someone like that has be right”? Things that you’re outright grudging in conceding?
There’s also an old Chicago City Council maxim: “never encourage an asshole.” Because even when a bad actor embraces a good thing, it’s probably their ulterior motive you’ll be endorsing
Trump and MAGA occasionally make some valid or half-valid arguments. They were right to complain that many European NATO nations weren’t pulling their proper share of the defense/military-spending burden, for instance.
The Nazis had a valid argument, in the 1930s, that the WWI Treaty of Versailles treated Germany unfairly.
Various statements made by Hitler in Mein Kampf or elsewhere were technically correct in a Machiavellian way. For instance, "He who owns the youth, gains the future." “The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous.” etc. etc.
I’m not sure if the OP considers “a broken clock is right twice a day” examples to count, but folks like Ann Coulter and Dick Cheney have all made valid criticisms of Trump at some point or other.
Yep. We do have a border problem that needs fixed, not that I agree with how they are doing it but nobodys done jack about for decades. Doing half measures cost the Dems that damn election.
And we don’t need the penny either and Social Security should never have been taxed. They are bigoted assholes but a few of their ideas are just common sense.
I agree that there’s a border problem, but it’s the exact opposite of what they claim it is, and therefore any “solution” they offer is going to be counterproductive.
Agreed, the claim is total bullshit and what they are doing is in many cases is illegal and inhumane.
What they are right about is the open border needs to be tightened up, something no administration has taken seriously. By ignoring the problem the previous adminstrations are giving this one the appearance of a win, which does piss me off.
No, what they’re wrong about is that the closed border needs to be loosened up. Everyone always says “They should come here legally!”. Which means that there needs to be a way to do that. Which there isn’t.
I always point out that the “based on” part is important. “You’re wrong, and you’re an idiot” isn’t ad hominem – it’s just an insult. Ad hominem is, “You’re wrong because you’re an idiot” and I don’t think there’s actually all that much of that going on. People hurl insults, but they’re never really used to justify any argument.
Also, “You’re a bad person, and therefore what you say absolutely must be false” is a fallacy. But “You’re a bad person, and therefore I don’t trust what you say, and must consider the possibility that what you’re saying is false” isn’t.
We have several threads offering an excellent example of what the OP asks for, and that is the criticisms that Elon Musk has leveled against Trump since their falling-out. Musk is an unmitigated self-serving jerk whose moral standards are just as non-existent as Trump’s, and many of his criticisms are self-serving and largely being made for the wrong reasons; still, the fact the remains that his attacks on Trump, taken at face value, are essentially correct.
Very much this. If someone I detest makes an argument I agree with, I don’t dismiss it out of hand, or stop to reconsider my ideas (unless the argument is strong enough on it’s own). I will absolutely though question the motives of the party especially (context matters!) if it’s an about-face or signification change from their prior stance.
Another variant comes from a more common source, that people aren’t all one thing. If we’re sticking to politics, prior to the last 10ish years of excessive polarization (especially for the Right) you did have politicians who I disagreed with on many issues, but were in tune with me on others, because, well, there’s a range of beliefs. But it ties into the old trope that you can have a totally evil waste of space, but they still love their kids, or their pets, or something. Just because I agree their kids are cute, it changes NOTHING about what they are.
Once we move past the ideals though, and move into the realm of actions, things get a bit different. If said individual wants to work with “my” team to forward my goals, then we’re at the stage of having to consider supping with the proverbial long spoon. And check three times for poison pills. And for what access they gain. Like most things in life, it’s a balancing act.
There are people who put the work in, who you KNOW are doing their due diligence before they speak. There are also people who you KNOW aren’t doing anything like due diligence.
Nobody has time (or expertise) to personally verify everything everyone tells them.
He used an incorrect value for air resistance, so his result was a bit wrong, but that was an honest mistake. People who replicated his work tended to be closer to his results than they should have been, which is embarrassing, since apparently they consciously or unconsciously skewed their results to be closer to his (I’m basing this on memory of something Feynman wrote - will doublecheck shortly)
I disagree. In fact there is no “problem”. But we do have an issue with people in the USA who need a clear path to citizenship.
I can see that.
I agree on both. Blame Reagan for the first- when he cut taxes for the rich, he added back taxes on Social Security and Unemployment. Let us roll that bak- top marginal tax rate back to 70%, and no tax on Soc Sec or Unemployment.
Musk has promoted EVs- which are a Good Thing- for many but by no means all.
