The Study of Racialism

What is ad hominem?

It is attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical example is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

In this site, ad hominem is when you bring up something derogatory about a person with whom you disagree, other than the "bone of contention" itself. You may point out the flaws that you see in you opponent's argument. But you may not try to discredit the other person by bringing up something from outside the thread or from a previous debate. For example, if someone argues that the intermarriage rate will soon fall, you may demand evidence of this, submit contrary evidence, challenge how intermarriage is measured, or even dispute its definition in the context of the thread. But you may not say that your opponent has evil motives in making the claim. You may not say that your opponent was wrong about a different topic entirely. Each topic should be debated as on its own and on the basis of data presented on this site.

It is usually possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponent is a fascist" with "My opponent's argument is fascist." Conversely, the mere fact that someone has demolished your argument does not per se mean that they engaged in ad hominem.

What about snide remarks that an opponent is "always wrong"?

If one person argues that the other is always wrong on other topics, then it is ad hominem, since it refers to something outside the topic being debated. On the other hand, if one person says that the other's argument is wrong, and is always wrong on that specific topic, then it is not ad hominem. Indeed if neither participant thinks that the other's thesis is wrong in some way, there is no dispute. Obviously, merely repeating that the other person is wrong, without disputing nor presenting evidence, is a childish and unpersuasive way to argue, but there are no rules against being childish and unpersuasive.

I have a question about this particular part of the wording of the rule:


I am truly uninterested in labeling "racists." I am, however, interested in identifying "racism" and to this end I think that there is a fully DESCRIPTIVE usage of the term to which we are not engaging in an ad hominem imputation of a motive.

From the site's stated definition of racism:

It seems to me that if someone is engaged in treating "races" as inferior or superior to one another, or as mistreating people based on race, that it is not an ad hominem attack to say so. It is possible that there can be a thing that is racism (our definition stated above) without concern about whether or not there is an intent of being racist.

I bring this up this because I see a lot of something that looks to me like "racism" in the thread entitled HAITI: BLACK MEN PREY ON OWN WOMEN and I would not like to say so and be seen as "attributing motives" in an ad hominem sense. The subject itself is not a discussion about some men in Haiti who are behaving abusively toward women or about some sort of misogynistic quality within the Haitian culture. It is saying something slanderous about "black" men by assigning the behaviors of some men with a certain phenotype in Haiti as representative of all "black" men in the US or across the world. To me, this is a DEMONSTRATED racism and not an ad hominem imputation of a motive.

To me, you could maintain that a statement/position has racist implications without maintaining that the person who made the statement is a racist or intended to express racism. Similarly, just because a statement caused offense doesn't mean that the person who made the statement intended to be offensive or cause offense. I can make an offensive statement but not mean to cause offense. A person can make a racist statement but not mean to express racism. Admittedly, it's a fine line, but if your intent is not to brand someone a racist, and you take care to outline your position respectfully, it's incumbent upon us all to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I think you and I both know that this particular subject matter (statements perceived to be racist) is so controversial and sensitive that characterization of a person's statement as "racist" could have huge implications and make constructive dialogue difficult. That's when the application of another rule, 1.4, might be applicable:



Racist language, strangely enough, can be hard to define as such because the association with racism is highly negative, and people perceived to be racists can pay a high social cost. I try (TRY) to use the most "technical" term to describe a statement. For example, in this thread, I characterized the position in question as "illogical." In the warning, I speculated whether the position was indicative of a "faith-based" belief, which is addressed in Rule 3.8: