Truth and Accuracy in the Blogosphere: Ad Hominen

 

Recently the Phantom was intrigued by a criticism of the Phantom's favorite blog-- which he considers almost as indispensable as the "Hitchens Resurrected" channel on youtube--a criticism which concerns accuracy and "fact" checking. 

The case arose over Trump's reaction to the statement by six Democratic Congressman--all veterans of the military or intelligence services--to the effect that soldiers must be aware of their obligation to disobey illegal orders, an obligation which emerged from the Nuremberg trials after World War II where the Nazis on trial invoked the defense, "I was only following orders" to defend themselves against charges they had herded Jewish women and children into a building and then burned them alive, or other such ghastly crimes, which, the American and Allies argued violated a basic sense of right and wrong common to all civilized people. 

Shot By National Guard: Kent State

In the context of modern day America, Trump quickly perceived that these Congressmen were warning National Guard soldiers that beating unarmed and defenseless men and women, and throwing them into vans for the crime of speaking Spanish near a construction site might come back to haunt those Guardsmen. 

National Guard Shooting Unarmed Students

Trump said he wanted those Congressmen arrested, tried and they should face execution.

These Guardsmen Were Never Arrested

Mad Dog had found that especially piquant because Trump, who evaded military service owing to his famous heel spurs has later (reportedly) echoed the mafioso's creed that you owe no loyalty to your country, and should serve only one group, your family. This was most famously and precisely depicted in the movie, "The Godfather," in the scene where the brothers are gathered around the dining room table on December 8, 1941, awaiting the arrival of the Godfather himself, and someone mentions that 30,000 men had enlisted in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor the day before. Sonny, the eldest of the brothers smirks, shaking his heads, saying those men, swept up in patriotic fervor to serve and defend their country are "saps." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=435mkg6_eGQ

It is a perfect display of the conflict between the Old World values of clan, tribal and family loyalty colliding with the newer concept of loyalty to a nation state and it is one of the most important scenes across all of the Godfather saga, and provides the cultural subtext for this film series as noir literature, and it echoes through scenes of Michael walking through villages in Sicily emptied by blood feuds among families, which make the Hatfields and McCoys look like playground skirmishes. And it reveals the contempt these men hold for the American military. And it is perfectly reflected in Trump's (reported) derision of American military as being "losers" and "suckers," on a trip to Normandy, where he refused to get out of his limousine and walk in the military cemetery there, and his words (which he claimed were "fake news") were not captured on tape but were reported by the New York Times, the Atlantic and other sources.

(Of course, this report in the Atlantic magazine was a bombshell and Trump denied saying it, but it has had such durability because it fits Trump's cynical "the game is rigged" and all the poor people are being played by the big guys who pull the strings. Trump is Sonny incarnate. Or Michael, for that matter, as Trump was once asked  on camera about a murder ordered by some foreign leader and he said, "Oh? And you don't think American Presidents kill people?" That's a video the Phantom saw with his own eyes. It echoed precisely that scene when Michael says exactly the same thing to his girlfriend, defending his choice to enter the Mafia Corleone family as the Don.)

So, Mad Dog, referring to all this, said that Trump had no love or respect for the military but was only concerned about these Congressmen undermining his own authority, and Mad Dog said Trump viewed the military as saps and fools, rather than the Atlantic's reported, "losers" and "suckers."

The point being, Trump spoke derisively about people who enlist and serve in the military, echoing Sonny's contempt. Mad Dog had conflated one phrase of derision with another, his critic averred. 

Now, you may ask, why did Mad Dog not simply say Trump has spoken derisively or contemptuously about people who serve in the military and let it go at that?

The reason is that it is stronger writing to give an example of what you consider derisive rather than simply allege what was said was actually derisive--present the facts and let the reader see for himself the nature of the remarks and what underlying values they reflect. 

Not using the actual words allows Trump to wriggle off the hook, "I never disparaged the military!" Well, if you called them "losers" you disparaged them. That echoes the Bob Dylan song, "Join the army if you fail." Or if you call them suckers, then you are right back to Sonny Corleone, and all that is contained in quoting the words. 

But if you say Trump referred to patriots rallying to the flag as "fools" and "saps" then Trump's defenders can say, "He never said that!"

Of course, that is a distinction without a difference.

And, never mind the problem of what is a "fact." Without a video/audio tape nobody really knows whether Trump said, "saps and fools" or "losers and suckers." And even with a video/audio, Trump will claim it's all deep fake, fake news and never happened. He sat in that limousine and refused to walk in the cemetery in the rain because it was raining and his comb over would dissolve.

But we can believe Trump was saying anyone who joins up is a small person being manipulated by propaganda from the elitist, rich and powerful, because that's been his pitch from the get go. It really is of a piece with the old Communist jibe that a bayonet is a weapon with a worker on either end, meaning, of course, German workers who were conned into joining their army wound up fighting Russian workers who were conned into joining the Russian army, but they were both actually on the same side, that of exploited working class fools, who allowed themselves to be manipulated by rich capitalists who are fighting over profits.

In this case, fools, saps, suckers and even losers are pretty much identical, with only minor differences in connotations for the word "losers," but not really: They all refer to people who were conned, misled, not bright enough to see their own interests on each side of the bayonet. 

So the critic who upbraided Mad Dog for inaccurately saying Trump uttered the words "losers" and "suckers" rather than "fools" and "saps" was insisting on a distinction without a difference, was missing the forest for the trees, was blind to the abstract point of derision and focusing instead on what was not true about that statement rather than what clearly was true.

This is a sort of argument called "ad hominem."

And one thing you can say for AI and Google, it allows for simple, direct and clear explication, so here it is:

The technique of "seizing on an irrelevant inaccuracy to undermine an argument" is known as the ad hominem fallacy, or a personal attack that distracts from the actual point being made. While not exclusive to any one political group, it is a common tactic used to redirect an argument by attacking the person rather than their position, often to evoke an emotional response rather than addressing the logic of their argument. 

How it works

• Focus on the person: Instead of engaging with the substance of an argument, the attacker focuses on a perceived flaw, inaccuracy, or character trait of the person making the argument.
• Create a diversion: This is done to shift the focus away from the original topic and create a distraction.
• Ignore the facts: The inaccuracy may be true or false, but the key is that it is irrelevant to the validity of the original argument itself.
• Appeal to emotion: The tactic often relies on emotions and prejudices to make the opposition's case seem invalid, even if the underlying reasoning is flawed. 

Example

• Original argument: A person presents data on climate change and proposes a specific policy.
• Ad hominem response: "That person is a liberal elite who has never lived in the real world, so their opinion on climate change is worthless," or "They once got a statistic wrong in a different speech five years ago, so everything they say now must be a lie."
• The technique: This response avoids a factual debate about the climate data or the proposed policy and instead uses a character or past error to dismiss the entire argument.