The Absolutely Despicable Ad Hominem Attack
I’ve just concluded a series on finding alternatives to the Hitler slander, the lazy man’s epithet. As I chronicled, if a person insists on making the world a slightly worse place by insulting someone, there are many other evil people to choose from besides the overexposed Adolf. Not only that, but a motivated practitioner of the ad hominem could tailor his insult to the perceived deficiencies of his opponent—a sort of boutique service of abuse crafted with artisanal care. For example, you could call an unrepentant ideologue a “Robespierre.” What about that callous tyrant at the office? Try “Nero.” Tired of someone’s lies? “Benedict Arnold” will do very nicely.
I am, of course, being sardonic and in no way wish to encourage such behavior. The power of the ad hominem is great, having the power to destroy a person’s reputation. Provocateurs, as I charitably call them, are seemingly oblivious to the damage they do. They manufacture immortal memes that haunt their victims while they retreat in search of more victims. Unfortunately, this behavior is all too common and something that we must contend with as we carefully nurture our reputations.
The good news about ad hominems is that the impulse to use them in a heated debate can serve as a useful warning sign. I suggest that when one is tempted to lob an ad hominem, it is highly likely that the argument currently on the table is being lost. At this point, wisdom dictates shoring up one’s arguments or simply accepting those weaknesses that are irrefutable. This is sometimes a hard decision to make. Frustrated by losing an argument, the last thing one wants to do is look deeper into its structure. Rather than doing all that work, isn’t it easier to instantly undermine the credibility of your opponent? You’d feel better for a while, but you’ll be no wiser. And remember, if your frustrated opponent is hurling invectives your way, this is excellent evidence your arguments are strong and hard to refute.
The ad hominem insult rests on very weak and superficial logic. Called the social contagion theory, it is a mapping of the behavior of infectious diseases to social discourse. In short, if a person is perceived as unsavory, then his unsuitability will “infect” those who associate with him. But understanding that logical weakness is useless. To survive, we must make quick summations of other people’s intent, and a well-made personal attack can very quickly create a negative image. Thinking through things takes too long, and the rapid attack provides the needed characterization in real time. Unraveling its illogic is a waste of time since it deftly bypasses reason. The target is quickly branded as unreliable and is forced to deviate from whatever argument was in process. Even denying the charge fails. Merely repeating the slander, even in the negative, just increases its viral load.
I despise this train of attack even more than the tiresome Hitler slander. The Hitler attack creates a kind of transparent outrage; the attack is so over the top that the audience's skepticism weakens its effect (but alas, only sometimes). Unfortunately, the more targeted ad hominem campaign triggers a social contagion, creating a toxic disgust response toward the victim. It works so often and so easily that it exposes a fundamental human deficiency: the inability to look at a “socially radioactive” individual and judge his ideas in a vacuum. Most people simply don't have the temperament for that kind of social risk, much less the intellectual discipline to do so.
