Ad Hominem Guilt By Association - Meme is offensive only if I post it

Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.

Original Question

I posted a meme. It showed Joseph (from the Bible) walking alongside Mary (also from the Bible) walking with Mary on a donkey. The meme said, "Joseph doesn't like... Father's Day."

A family member posts immediately thereafter. Stating that the meme is offensive. I ask how. They say because it was posted by me and I hold a decidedly anti-religious stance online. So therefore the meme is offensive.

To which I ask, what if someone else posted it... They said it would be funny.

Isn't this Ad Hominem Guilt By Association?

Answers

There are a lot of asses in the Bible, why must one add to them by being one outside the Bible. Oh yeah, some people need to act superior to cover up feelings of being inferior. I believe it's called the domino pizza effect. Or maybe I have no timing in regards to jokes, only time will tell.

Upon closer examination, I submit this question becomes more complex. The classic “ad Hominem” (against the man) argument is traditionally placed on someone making an assertion of fact or substance, while purportedly deficient in the ability or expertise to do so. Thus, the attempt is made to diminish or discredit the independent or objective validity of the assertion, based on the assertor's incompetence. Thus, this amounts to a true logical fallacy.

Now, substitute assertion of a ‘subjective view’, such as humor, for the traditional one of ‘fact or substance.’ Can the ad hominem argument still be relevant, i.e., to someone asserting something ‘softer’ (more subjective) than the ‘hard’ assertion of fact or truth? Bo provided an example of where this might not be the case, but can this be considered uniform?

This reminds me of the scene in Rush Hour , when Jacki Chan tries to blend in and repeats Chris Tucker's greeting to a fellow African-American: "What's up my n*gger?" It was acceptable when Tucker said it but not Chan. In this situation, the person offended confused ignorance with intent. In your situation, it is not about ignorance (you know what the meme means and why it is ironic). The assumption by your family member is that your intent is not to find irony in a shared belief system, but poke fun at the outgroup's belief system. As a non-theist myself, I avoid liking these kinds of memes because I know my indirect endorsement of these would irritate my theistic friends and family. To me, that is not worth it.

I don't see any fallacy here. It is reasonable to assume a different intent from a non-theist than if a theist posted the same meme, just like Black people can get away with telling Black jokes and White people can't. No matter what your intent, the ingroup/outgroup distinction does affect the appropriateness.

A test: think about one of the many memes/jokes poking fun at atheists. How would you feel if Richard Dawkins posted it? How about a well-known Christian apologist?

Tuesday, Jun 21, 2016 09:30 AM

Just a point of clarification: "offensive" is a subjective label that, as I have hopefully shown, has much to do with the person and the situation. This is not the same as an objective argument where the person who is making the argument is irrelevant to the strength of the argument.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o. . .

I think the difference here is whether an argument is logical vs. whether something is funny or not. If you are retelling a joke, then your background will color whether the joke is seen as amusing or an attack on a particular group. If you are trying to present a logical argument, however, it doesn't matter what your background is; what is important is the soundness and validity of the argument. To say an argument is wrong merely because you said it is an ad hominem attack.

It certainly strikes me as an ad hominem reaction & inference. The family member eliminates any ambiguity by admitting he/she would consider the meme humorous if authored by someone else, presuming (we tacitly assume!) the alternate hypothetical author was not known to be equally or more anti-religious than you. In this event, irrational consistency would dictate the family member would also find the meme offensive; if not, there is something else at play.

Want the full book?

Get the complete guide to logical fallacies by Bo Bennett.

Buy the Book

Master Logical Fallacies Online

Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.

View Online Course