You can ad-hominem in your mind—if you think the words “This person is an [x], so I don’t have to listen to them” as a reason for ignoring an argument you should be listening to.
I certainly do that—it’s just that I don’t think this activity can be usefully labeled “ad hominem”. There is a tricky part in your sentence, though—what is that “should be listening to” and where does it come from? How do I know what I should be listening to?
I certainly do that—it’s just that I don’t think this activity can be usefully labeled “ad hominem”. There is a tricky part in your sentence, though—what is that “should be listening to” and where does it come from? How do I know what I should be listening to?
How do you know what you shouldn’t be listening to? Or, to put a finer edge on it—you’re already using a criteria for deciding what you shouldn’t be listening to, the criteria you refuse to call ad-hominem. Why did you choose that criteria?
Past experience, general considerations, inferences, all the usual stuff.
In the Internet age you decline much MUCH more content than you accept. The opportunity costs are noticeable and you pretty much have to prefilter your information flow if you don’t want to be standing with your face in front of an operating water canon.
Given all this, the selection process is going to be noisy, slanted, and very much imperfect. I suspect that opportunities to improve it are going to revolve around more filtering, not less. That’s a complicated and hugely influential process. Sticking an ad hominem label somewhere in there seems.. not the best idea.
Sticking an ad hominem label in there is accurate. More importantly, it lets you improve your filters with information on when ad hominem is generally correct—as opposed to incorrect. Throwing out the label because it offends your sensibilities limits your ability to use the information associated with that label.
That label does not offend my sensibilities which are pretty hard to offend, anyway. It’s inappropriate, not useful, serves only to confuse, and just plain wrong :-P
That wasn’t an entirely serious sentence :-)
I certainly do that—it’s just that I don’t think this activity can be usefully labeled “ad hominem”. There is a tricky part in your sentence, though—what is that “should be listening to” and where does it come from? How do I know what I should be listening to?
How do you know what you shouldn’t be listening to? Or, to put a finer edge on it—you’re already using a criteria for deciding what you shouldn’t be listening to, the criteria you refuse to call ad-hominem. Why did you choose that criteria?
Past experience, general considerations, inferences, all the usual stuff.
In the Internet age you decline much MUCH more content than you accept. The opportunity costs are noticeable and you pretty much have to prefilter your information flow if you don’t want to be standing with your face in front of an operating water canon.
Given all this, the selection process is going to be noisy, slanted, and very much imperfect. I suspect that opportunities to improve it are going to revolve around more filtering, not less. That’s a complicated and hugely influential process. Sticking an ad hominem label somewhere in there seems.. not the best idea.
Sticking an ad hominem label in there is accurate. More importantly, it lets you improve your filters with information on when ad hominem is generally correct—as opposed to incorrect. Throwing out the label because it offends your sensibilities limits your ability to use the information associated with that label.
That label does not offend my sensibilities which are pretty hard to offend, anyway. It’s inappropriate, not useful, serves only to confuse, and just plain wrong :-P