Alternate realities, certainly unlike not making a PR at GitHub, rather than unhinged accusations that spent over an hour doubling, tripling, quintupling down for a couple of hours…
Because instead of addressing anything at all about what I said, they said more or less “but you’re the person that said (totally unrelated thing) which I don’t agree with therefore you’re unhinged.”
You attacked me on some totally unrelated topic, instead of addressing anything I said about this topic.
If you disagreed with me about whether or not it’s totally cool and normal for Lemmy to send people’s admin passwords back to the mothership, you could weigh in over on that topic back when we were talking about that (and I’m pretty sure you did). It’s all good, the issue is fixed now whether or not it was an honest mistake in the code, and we all had our say on it.
Now all of a sudden we’re talking about some totally different issue, and whether or not anyone in power on Lemmy was “suppressing” or “banning” criticism of the Democrats during the run-up to the election (they were not) is left on the table, forgotten.
Here’s more explanation if you need it, with some examples of how attacking past unrelated arguments or issues can be a good example of using ad hominem to deflect from anything about the issue currently under discussion:
When someone uses an ad hominem fallacy, what’s going on inside their head? Often, this tactic is a defense mechanism. People tend to resort to ad hominem when they feel backed into a corner or threatened in some way.
Instead of tackling the issue or the argument being discussed, it’s easier—and emotionally safer—to attack the person making the argument. This is often an unconscious response fueled by cognitive biases like the “confirmation bias,” which makes us more likely to believe things that align with our existing opinions.
Launching an ad hominem attack, on the other hand, is quick and easy. It’s a low-effort way to feel like you’re winning an argument, even if you’re not actually engaging with the issue at hand. It’s a psychological shortcut that undermines rational discussion.
This is why I always regret it when I go to lemmy.world lol.
Alternate realities, certainly unlike not making a PR at GitHub, rather than unhinged accusations that spent over an hour doubling, tripling, quintupling down for a couple of hours…
Can you explain how this fallacy applies? Also, dick move posting pictures of text without a transcript.
Because instead of addressing anything at all about what I said, they said more or less “but you’re the person that said (totally unrelated thing) which I don’t agree with therefore you’re unhinged.”
Oh dear, he’s going down the list of fallacies, after calling us disingenuous, when I clearly attacked unhinged posts.
You attacked me on some totally unrelated topic, instead of addressing anything I said about this topic.
If you disagreed with me about whether or not it’s totally cool and normal for Lemmy to send people’s admin passwords back to the mothership, you could weigh in over on that topic back when we were talking about that (and I’m pretty sure you did). It’s all good, the issue is fixed now whether or not it was an honest mistake in the code, and we all had our say on it.
Now all of a sudden we’re talking about some totally different issue, and whether or not anyone in power on Lemmy was “suppressing” or “banning” criticism of the Democrats during the run-up to the election (they were not) is left on the table, forgotten.
Here’s more explanation if you need it, with some examples of how attacking past unrelated arguments or issues can be a good example of using ad hominem to deflect from anything about the issue currently under discussion:
https://practicalpie.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/
This is why I always regret it when I go to lemmy.world lol.