Post #2108549
2026-04-26 03:51 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2026-04-26 03:52
I’m directly criticizing two separate things: your behavior, and your claim that pizzacake is a well documented misandrist. That your behavior is remarkably predictable around these issues doesn’t invalidate your claim; we get the conclusion that your claim is baseless from the way you refuse to support it. Neither of those are an ad hominem or a whattaboutism, and you would be well served by finding out what those terms represent before you try and defend yourself with them.
-
@erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 2026-04-26 14:33
Saying it does not make it so. It seems to me that referencing your prior behavior and attacking your lack of sources are both relevant and productive for discussion, while misusing fallacies to shut down arguments you don’t like is, ironically, a rhetorical fallacy. They aren’t deflecting by randomly bringing up some unrelated characteristic (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food, I have it on good authority that they’re a terrible parent!), they’re calling back to your previous behavior in similar situations (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food because they have a history of giving people food poisoning!). That isn’t ad hominem, or whataboutism. If your character and actions might be damming to your arguments, attacking them is attacking your argument, especially when also attacking your sources! Ironically, continuing to attack the comic artist without citing sources is ad hominem, by definition.