this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
385 points (98.2% liked)

Comic Strips

17599 readers
1372 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Even if it’s not an attack of their argument, and is stated simply as a fact, a personal attack does still work to discredit the opponent to any audience, and can therefore be considered a fallacious ad hominem tactic.

It’s basically poisoning the well. Even though you’re not explicitly saying it, the audience will infer that someone who can justifiably be described as “shit for brains” should not be trusted on the relevant topic. Even someone profoundly stupid can be right, and even someone incredibly intelligent can be wrong.

That being said, even if someone has been viciously personally attacked, if the attacker has otherwise proved their argument wrong, that’s what truly matters. It does definitely make me think less of someone if they constantly personally attack their opponent, though.

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I wonder if it can be ad hominem if it's a personal attack that technically bolsters your opponent's argument. For example, if you're debating a scientist about some scientific subject, and you call them an egghead or a nerd. I think it still counts.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

"shit-for-brains" kinda discredits any and all arguments though doesn't it?

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Technically not, since a lack of intelligence doesn't necessarily imply that something said by a given person is wrong (else an unintelligent person could make things more likely to be wrong by saying something, or would be unable to say that thing if it is true.)

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 week ago

Ok, shit-for-brains. 😜

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

a lack of intelligence doesn't necessarily imply that something said by a given person is wrong

This doesn't seem convincing to me because it's the exact same sort of criticism you'd make about any other ad hominem statement.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

User name doesn't check out, and why would you open yourself to being called shit for brains like this?

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Strangely, I've never had someone say that my username doesn't check out who also explained clearly why they thought that way. I think this is the second time.

And being called names by strangers online doesn't really register as anything but noise. I guess if it was in this thread, it would be slightly on topic, but elsewhere, it would probably just lead to reports and blocks.

[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The bonus panel explains why it doesn't.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago

Oh I forgot to open the page to see it, thanks for the reminder 😅

[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 week ago

The sequel to https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/phenom we have all been waiting for

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"strawman"

does not eleborate further, thinks they won, leaves

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 1 week ago

How to win debates on the Internet 101.

In 201, you learn how to do it with more Latin.

[–] sillyplasm@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

why doesn't the guy on the right have any ears

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

The shit would leak

[–] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

First of all, I’m a fucking shit for brains idiot. Second of all, *presents highly intelligent nuanced opinion.*

I feel this argument applies in many situations

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I stand forever enlightened

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Further, the fallacy fallacy states that even if you did it doesn't make the other side "the automatic winner because the other guy was mean."

I thought that was the "neener neener" fallacy

[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But an insult is not an argument. And he himself calls it an argument, implying that he is trying to discredit, thereby making it ad hominem.