History Main / AdHominem

* ''Film/ReeferMadnessTheMusical'' features a propagandist who uses this when a parent objects to the propagandist's absurd story about marijuana abuse. He starts by using an AppealToWealth and AppealToAuthority to point out that William Randolph Hearst agrees with his position, then demands to know where the man matriculated. When the man doesn't know the word matriculate, the propagandist goes in for the kill and makes the man admit he never went to college. The propagandist then dismisses the man entirely. Later, he takes it a step further by claiming the man's views are "extreme" and "Un-American."

* Poisoning the Well: Preemptively presenting adverse information about something/someone in order to ridicule/discredit ''everything'' they say.

* Criticizing someone's hypocrisy or {{double standard}}s without claiming this makes them wrong by itself.

* Poisoning the Well: A usually-preemptive attack on a source of information is intended to call into question ''everything'' it says.

* All instances of "What ''they'' don't want you to know..." have at least a tacit form of the impugning motives form of an ad hominem. For example, "What doctors don't want you to know..." tacitly assumes ''all'' physicians have a vested interest in keeping you from learning about some miracle cure and are willing to ignore their Hippocratic Oaths to do so. Even if this were true, which it is not, it would be up to the "Miracle Cure Salesman" to prove his or her AllNaturalSnakeOil actually works better than the standard science-based alternative.
** Expect an immediate case of SpecialPleading to follow.
* The common (something)-splaining rebuttal in social justice circles is intended to discredit a speaker simply because they come from a particular group which is held to be defending the status quo that they benefit from. This is usually tied to an inverse use, that simply living through something automatically means one has insight into it that is inaccessible to outsiders and should not be questioned by them (often mocked as “lived experiences”). In fairness though, it can just be a resentment at being told about things the person in question knows already (it was coined by a woman who'd had her ''very own book'' explained to her by a man, albeit he didn't know about her authorship at the time), or should know better themselves, which is what “mansplaining” was originally intended to refer to before degenerating to ad hominem attacks due to the standard quality of internet arguments.

* The white nationalist community likes to allege that the term "racism" was coined by UsefulNotes/LeonTrotsky, [[InsaneTrollLogic and therefore all opposition to racism is a communist plot]].

* The common (something)-splaining rebuttal in social justice circles is intended to discredit a speaker simply because they come from a particular group which is held to be defending the status quo that they benefit from. This is usually tied to an inverse use, that simply living through something automatically means one has insight into it that is inaccessible to outsiders and should not be questioned by them (often mocked as “lived experiences”). In fairness though, it can just be a resentment at being told about things the person in question knows already, or should know better themselves, which is what “mansplaining” was originally intended to refer to before degenerating to ad hominem attacks due to the standard quality of internet arguments.

** ''Series/TheDailyShow'' had a great example of one on their March 31st, 2014 episode. Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey as of the time of writing (April 2014), was embattled in a scandal regarding blocking a bridge out of spite. Governor Christie announced the result of an inquiry done by his own hand-picked legal team. The report exonerated Christie. Jon Stewart dismissed the report just on the grounds that it came from Christie's office. That is a clear case of this fallacy. However, it would be a case of the FallacyFallacy to say that Jon's ad hominem ''proves'' Governor Christie is in the clear, as it's certainly reasonable to be suspicious. Especially after it was later proved he ''was'' involved, though not in any legally binding fashion.

** American whites can't talk about slavery because they never experienced it.[[note]]Indentured servitude (effectively slavery with the serial numbers filed off) was extremely common in pre-revolutionary America with an estimated one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Americas between the 1630s and the American Revolution arriving under a contract of indenture, far more than the number of Black slaves transported to North America during the transatlantic slave trade era.[[/note]]

* The common (something)-splaining rebuttal in social justice circles is intended to discredit a speaker simply because they come from a particular group which is held to be defending the status quo that they benefit from. This is usually tied to an inverse use, that simply living through something automatically means one has insight into it that is inaccessible to outsiders and should not be questioned by them. In fairness though, it can just be a resentment at being told about things the person in question knows already, or should know better themselves.

It would be quite logically sound to say "Why should we take their word for it?" It is not sound, however, to say that the above statement ''must'' be false, because despite the fact that the Weekly World News was noted for being full of made-up stories, UsefulNotes/GeorgeWashington ''was'' the first President of the United States.

* People facing ''ad hominem'' accusations of misogyny, racism or homophobia commonly respond with counter-charges of [[DoesNotLikeMen misandry]], [[MalcolmXerox reverse racism]][[note]]With the [[BeggingTheQuestion dubious]] implication that racism has default and reverse states, as opposed to a single state that appears whenever someone denigrates a racial group other than their own.[[/note]] and [[HetIsEw heterophobia]], respectively, thereby fighting fallacy with fallacy. Some, however, define sexism and racism solely to be "prejudice plus power" so that the dominant group ''alone'' is guilty of it. This becomes an issue of definitions then.

* This is essentially what the "YoureJustJealous" rebuttal is: a person attempting to refute a claim that [insert popular work] is bad, not by addressing
any of the arguments used, but by calling on the lower and social status of the person making the argument (in relation to the famous and wealthy creator), and asserting that they're only saying the work is bad because they're jealous of the creator's fame and success. The hollowness of this rebuttal has been mocked more than once.

* [[Disney/{{Bambi}} If You Can't Say Something Nice...]]

* A common Republican argument against the efforts to impeach President Donald Trump put forth by Democrats was that they're only doing it because they don't like him and are mad about losing the 2016 election. While this isn't necessarily untrue (and a bit of a CaptainObvious statement), the attempt is being carried out because they believe he has committed impeachable offenses and do not want to let him get away with it; their personal dislike of Trump and soreness about 2016 is irrelevant.
* "Git gud": the universal bad game design defense. Whenever someone complains about a game being bad, citing either an overload of ClassicVideoGameScrewYous, FakeDifficulty, CameraScrew, poor controls etc., expect at least one person to respond, [[{{Scrub}} "You'd just don't like it 'cuz you suck at it."]] This has become a minor meme.

* A common Republican argument against the efforts to impeach President Donald Trump put forth by Democrats is that they're only doing it because they don't like him and are mad about losing the 2016 election. While this isn't necessarily untrue (and a bit of a CaptainObvious statement), the attempt is being carried out because they believe he has committed impeachable offenses and do not want to let him get away with it; their personal dislike of Trump and soreness about 2016 is irrelevant.

[[quoteright:350:[[Webcomic/SaturdayMorningBreakfastCereal https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/ad_hominem.png]]]]

!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Tu quoque]]''' ("[[AltumVidetur You, too!]]")

Ad hominem is very often mistakenly claimed in cases where an argument's opponent attacks its proponent ''in addition to presenting a valid counterargument''. "You're stupid, therefore your argument is invalid" is an ''ad hominem''; "your argument is invalid, therefore you're stupid" (or "Your argument is invalid ''and'' you're stupid") is not. Similarly, some people seem to think that Ad Hominem is necessarily abusive, which it isn't. "You've used the '[[FourTermsFallacy Four Terms]]' fallacy, you stupid idiot, therefore you're using faulty logic" is not Ad Hominem (although it might be FallacyFallacy if done badly). "Mike has clearly put a lot of thought into whether we should buy a pool, but he ''is'' a convicted felon" is.

* The common (something)-splaining rebuttal in social justice circles is intended to discredit a speaker simply because they come from a particular group which is held to be defending the status quo that they benefit from. This is usually tied to an inverse use, that simply living through something automatically means one has insight into it that is inaccessible to outsiders and should not be questioned by them.

* UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins in ''The God Delusion'' illustrated a striking example used by a member of the Cult of John Frum, a real-world CargoCult. The cults have numerous forms, such as those that proclaim Frum is the King of America and that he will come in an apocalyptic cataclysm with deliverance and tons of material goods. A researcher asked a believer, "Isn't 19 years a long time to wait for John Frum?" The believer replied, "If the white man can wait two thousand years for Jesus Christ..."

* People facing ''ad hominem'' accusations of misogyny, racism or homophobia commonly respond with countercharges of [[DoesNotLikeMen misandry]], [[MalcolmXerox reverse racism]][[note]]With the [[BeggingTheQuestion dubious]] implication that racism has default and reverse states, as opposed to a single state that appears whenever someone denigrates a racial group other than their own[[/note]] and [[HetIsEw heterophobia]], respectively, thereby fighting fallacy with fallacy.

* Tu Quoque ("You, too!"): The attack is that the [[StrawHypocrite person making the argument does the same thing they're arguing against themselves]], or that they, at some previous time, held a different opinion.

->''"If a crazy serial killer who believes he is surrounded by Teletubbies argues that if you drop a ball, it'll fall to the ground, because gravity will pull the ball towards the Earth, is he wrong? Do the arguments become less valid [[DamnedByAFoolsPraise because you think there's something wrong with the person behind the arguments]]? Will the ball start falling upwards from now on?"''

->''"If a crazy serial killer who believes he is surrounded by Teletubbies argues that if you drop a ball, it'll fall to the ground, because gravity will pull the ball towards the Earth, is he wrong? Do the arguments become less valid because you think there's something wrong with the person behind the arguments? Will the ball start falling upwards from now on?"''

A good discussion of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy on the Internet may be found [[http://archive.today/UBJGx on the website of one Stephen Bond]]. See also DontShootTheMessage, HitlerAteSugar, NoYou, HypocriteHasAPoint.

* Whataboutism: "You object to X, but what about Y?" Tries to discredit the person or deflect their point by asking why they didn't bring up a different point. Often includes a False Equivalency fallacy.

The most pernicious manifestation is where entire groups are potentially shut out of the discussion:

** American whites can't talk about slavery because they never experienced it.[[note]]Jews (who are usually considered white) experienced an equally long amount of time as slaves in Babylon and various other places, making the antisemitism present in some black radical circles [[WeAreStrugglingTogether even more ridiculous]].[[/note]]

* Read an article about social justice and related topics. Now read the comments about how often the ''entire'' argument is somehow rendered meaningless because of who said it. If you get in any debate about social justice, expect to see this thrown around a ''lot'' from both sides.

* Attacking a person for having some character flaw that does not adversely affect or negate the things that he or she is famous for. Therefore, something like [[ItsNotSupposedToWinOscars "He's not the Pope!" or "He's not Jesus!"]] is not a valid comeback; at issue is not whether the person has a right to be famous, but whether he or she can be considered a good role model ''due'' to that fame (Pete Rose's gambling, Creator/MelGibson's alcoholism and antisemitism).

-->The [[LuridTalesOfDoom Weekly World News]] says that UsefulNotes/GeorgeWashington was the first president of the United States.

It would be quite logically sound to say "Why should we take their word for it? They're unreliable and biased!" It is not sound, however, to say that the above statement ''must'' be false, because despite the fact that the Weekly World News was noted for being full of made-up stories, UsefulNotes/GeorgeWashington ''was'' the first President of the United States-and this was common knowledge long before ''Weekly World News'' existed.