"Drive-by Ad Hominem" in a Controversial Debate
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
You've seen this, right? Someone brings up an argument/claim, and another person acts as if it is tainted because it's associated with the wrong side. (Big hint!)
Logical form
Person makes X argument.
Person 2 responds that X argument is just [insert drive-by adhom here].
An example:
Malcolm: Isn't it interesting how Black Lives Matter only focuses on police brutality, when statistically black Americans more likely to get shot by another black person? They should focus on black-on-black crime.
Martin: Black-on-black crime is just a right-wing talking point.
The implication is that argument X is not worth focusing on, because it is 'right-wing'.
This screams ad hominem (guilt by association) but also seems like it could fall under red herring as well (since we're diverting the conversation towards whether or not X is a right-wing talking point, rather than whether X is true).
Comments on Question
Red herrings are another term for "whataboutism." The two issues -- police brutality and violence within the black community -- are not totally disconnected or unrelated, but here the latter point seems to be injected into the conversation with a view to neutralizing the former point.
Answers
1I think this fallacy more resembles avoiding the issue . The arguer likely isn't trying to discuss the fact that black on black crime is a right wing talking point, but is trying to dismiss the argument entirely on those grounds.
A real life example I can give is during the 2020 elections in the US. There was some controversy over Joe Bidens son Hunter being involved on the board of a Ukranian energy company dispite having no experience in that field. People suspected that hunter may have gotten the position via his father's influence while he was the VP under Obama.
I can recall one instance of president Biden during a Q&A at one of his campaign rallies, when being asked about the allegations by a member of the audience, he interjected his question serval times to argue "that's just a right wing talking point." Then he proceeded to ask if another audience member had a question.
Notice that the point of saying the argument was a right wing talking point was not to discuss whether it's a right wing talking point or what that would mean, but rather to dismiss the inquiry altogether on these grounds.
This also ties back to a tactic politicians use all the time, poisoning the well.
The Democrats asserted at least since the 2016 election that the right was the party of fake news (among other undesirable things). Thus, when they say "that's a rght wing talking point" they mean to suggest that it's fake news.
Looking at the example in the OP, the dems have been saying for years that the right is "the party of racism". The greater implication being that any arguments brought up by the right must have its roots in racist thinking. So when one makes the point about black on black crime is a right wing talking point, they also mean to to imply that it's a racist comment.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Right. Even if it is a "right wing talking point," that is irrelevant to the truth of the claim. Avoiding the issue, refusing to engage, dismissing the argument without considering it, etc.