Very often, when you write or say something that strikes a raw nerve, you can and will be personally attacked in one way or another, so as to take the focus off of what you’ve actually said and onto you, the messenger. Sadly, in an age where not only logic, reason and good ole commonsense have flown the coop a long time ago, such attacks can be effective. I say can, because they’re only as effective as those who are its victims allow them to go without challenge. Today, I should like to demonstrate a clear and present example of an Ad Hominem attack, and not only how to defend against it, but to defeat the opponent who resorted to such a strategem in the first place.
Recently, “Natasha W”, a young Black Woman who “swirls” visited the O-Files and left a series of comments in response to my “To Swirl With Anger” post; now, she prides herself on her ability to reason and use logic, and has no patience for those whom she deems lacking in these areas. To wit:
“So… I guess women should never date men. And men should never date women. After all, both have a long history of oppression with each other. How could you date women considering how they’ve used men to gain a higher position in society? How could women date you given how men have treated women?
Illogic reigns.” (Obsidian’s emphasis.)
There are other such commentary by her in response to opposing remarks to her views in the resulting comments thread.
Cool, I say! Then what’s good for the goose is indeed good for the gander, no? Here’s what this same exemplar of cool logic says about yours truly, over at Zek Jevets’ blog roughly a week ago (Jevets himself convulsing in an Ad Hominem spasm in response to what I said; please note that he never addresses my arguments or the references upon which they are based – hmm!):
“Well, actually, he is an acquaintance of my brother’s girlfriend. They live in the same city and he works around her alma mater sometimes.
Long story ahead…
I remember reading where one of the commenters called him by another name and I thought “Why are they calling him that?” So this morning, riding to work, I was just thinking and my mind drifted. I thought about this situation and how the author had some astrology posts up on his blog, how he has this bulldog style of communicating, and how he seems to like the color black and derivatives of it. Then it was like one of those moments that Raven gets in That’s So Raven; my eyes got wide and my mouth turned into an “O”. Except I wasn’t seeing into the future. I just realized that I’ve had more than one run-in with him.
I was visiting my brother’s girlfriend once and we saw him. They said a few words, but later she mentioned how she thought he was weird because he studies astrology. He had a weird name as well; not sure if it was real or not… but it was like the one that the commenter had used on that blog. So when I remembered these details, I put all the pieces together and started searching — I like to get to the bottom of things. I looked through my brother’s girlfriend’s facebook friends. Through a lot of twisting and turning I found the guy’s myspace page (I vaguely remembered his face), which had a link to another blog of his. Sure enough, when I looked through the comments, I saw people addressing him as “theobsidianfiles” or just “obsidian”.
Then, I was thinking further and I remembered this guy used to be on a forum I moderate; I remembered him through the pictures he used and the name — they were same one he used on the forum. We banned him for misogynistic writings, writing inflammatory comments, and stalking other female members. It was a big deal on my forum because he did start some good discussions, so we didn’t want to ban him right away.
As I’m realizing all this I’m thinking “Oh. my. goodness”… I had to take a few minutes to digest it all.
So a couple things about him: he is nearly old enough to be Jasmin’s father and he is not all that great-looking himself. (That’s all I’ll say about him in an open venue, but there is more.) He is genuinely a miserable character, says all who know him, and now we see right before our eyes that misery INDEED loves company.“
Now folks, this is a classic, textbook Ad Hominem attack. Let’s replay the tape, this time with a bit of call and response, shall we?
“Well, actually, he is an acquaintance of my brother’s girlfriend. They live in the same city and he works around her alma mater sometimes.”
Notice how Natasha starts right out by saying “I know this guy!”, as if her knowing or not knowing me, has any say whatsoever as to the validity of my argument. It doesn’t. Logical fallacy #1.
Oh, and for the record – I have no idea who Natasha is, nor is it relevant to the matter at hand; secondarily, I never have “worked around her alma mater”, if by “alma mater” it is meant Temple U. I worked, when I was a volunteer instructor at Temple, either clear accross town or before that, out of state all together.
So, that’s strike one.
“Long story ahead…
“I remember reading where one of the commenters called him by another name and I thought “Why are they calling him that?” So this morning, riding to work, I was just thinking and my mind drifted. I thought about this situation and how the author had some astrology posts up on his blog, how he has this bulldog style of communicating, and how he seems to like the color black and derivatives of it. Then it was like one of those moments that Raven gets in That’s So Raven; my eyes got wide and my mouth turned into an “O”. Except I wasn’t seeing into the future. I just realized that I’ve had more than one run-in with him.”
“That’s so Raven”?!? Natasha, honey, you’re dating yourself. You sure you’re legal?
Anyway, Natasha is referring to commenter and gadfly Chic Noir, who often refers to me by the phrases “Mu” or “Uncle Mu”, the “Mu” being short for my name, Mu’Min. I met Chic almost two years ago at Roissy’s blog, which I began posting comments in Sep of 2008. At the time, I used my name Mu’Min, although shortly before leaving Roissy’s to start my own blog, I used the “seduction name” Obsidian – a name that was in fact, given to me by another of Roissy’s commenters – and – while there at Roissy’s wrote a bit about astrology as well. I have never hidden who I was, as we shall see below. As for the strike count, that’s #2…
“I was visiting my brother’s girlfriend once and we saw him. They said a few words, but later she mentioned how she thought he was weird because he studies astrology. He had a weird name as well; not sure if it was real or not… but it was like the one that the commenter had used on that blog. So when I remembered these details, I put all the pieces together and started searching — I like to get to the bottom of things. I looked through my brother’s girlfriend’s facebook friends. Through a lot of twisting and turning I found the guy’s myspace page (I vaguely remembered his face), which had a link to another blog of his. Sure enough, when I looked through the comments, I saw people addressing him as “theobsidianfiles” or just “obsidian”.”
LOL. If you wanted to know who I was all you had to do is ask. Like I said, I never “hid” who I was, it was always public. I did have a MySpace but never had a Facebook as of yet, nor do I intend to, for the simple reason that I do quite well for myself insofar as getting my blogging out there into the blogosphere, and I like to be efficient.
“Then, I was thinking further and I remembered this guy used to be on a forum I moderate; I remembered him through the pictures he used and the name — they were same one he used on the forum. We banned him for misogynistic writings, writing inflammatory comments, and stalking other female members. It was a big deal on my forum because he did start some good discussions, so we didn’t want to ban him right away.
“As I’m realizing all this I’m thinking “Oh. my. goodness”… I had to take a few minutes to digest it all.”
Yet more Ad Hominem: exactly what are “misognynistic writings”? We don’t know, because Natasha – perhaps intentionally, declines to give specifics. We are to take her word for it that I am indeed, a “misogynist”, whatever that means. And, we’ve all heard the “stalking” defense before, now haven’t we? Tsk, tsk, Natasha; you ladies really should get out of the kitchen if you cannot hack the heat.
“So a couple things about him: he is nearly old enough to be Jasmin’s father and he is not all that great-looking himself. (That’s all I’ll say about him in an open venue, but there is more.) He is genuinely a miserable character, says all who know him, and now we see right before our eyes that misery INDEED loves company.”"
LMAO. You’re funny. For one thing, my personal life is irrelevant to the claims you made, but for the record I have never lacked feminine company when I wanted it, and indeed have been involved with Women, continuously, before I began my five year tenure at Temple as well as throughout said tenure. At present, I am with someone who I am very happy with, I might add. As for my physical appearance, I find it interesting that you use as your “character witness” Chic Noir, because she wouldn’t characterize my looks in the same way; she’s said as much, right here at the O-Files. Moreover, I find your comments about age(ism) quite fascinating, since age had nothing at all to do with what I said (please note that my original “Swirl” post mentioned a middle aged Black Woman(!). Finally, since you’re going to use my previous history with Temple U as a guide into my character and so forth, let the record show that not only did I have to satisfy the higherups in the program I taught out of, but I also had to get the approval of my students in order to return the following year. I taught there for five years. That’s five years’ worth of student evaluations, Natasha. And when I left, it was under my own steam, by my own volition – something others who’ve been there cannot say.
So, to sum up, we see her employing yet another Ad Hominem attack – and this coming from one who again, holds herself out as some exemplar of reason and logic. She is neither.
As I said before, and I repeat again, Ad Hominem is the last refuge of scoundrels. It is what they do when they cannot legitimately argue against your well laidout points and arguments. Even Natasha admits I do this routinely, in her comment above: “It was a big deal on my forum because he did start some good discussions, so we didn’t want to ban him right away.”
Hence, my posting the following quote from my previous post on the matter:
“I note that my enemies have written a great deal about me, yet they rarely quote me directly. Why not? If I am so disreputable myself, I must at least occasionally say disreputable things. Is it possible that what I say is more cogent than they like to admit?”
- Joe Sobran
http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/clarifying-the-swirling-debate-obsidian-answers-the-critics/
We await Ms. Natasha’s attempts at legitimate argumentation. We know she can do it if she only tries – really hard! 
LOL
Now adjourn your asses…
O.
