Ad hominem applies to arguments. The source of an argument does not affect the soundness of that argument.
But it’s not a fallacy to question an overarching narrative based on the source. If a person keeps selectively choosing facts and twisting words to forward a specific narrative, it’s not fallacious to view what that person says with skepticism.
And other people are doing that in the comments. I addressed your point about ad-hominem specifically. So your response is kinda irrelevant to what I wrote.
People are questioning the narrative the author is painting based on their motivations. That’s different to ad-hominem.
It’s still just ad hominem.
Ad hominem applies to arguments. The source of an argument does not affect the soundness of that argument.
But it’s not a fallacy to question an overarching narrative based on the source. If a person keeps selectively choosing facts and twisting words to forward a specific narrative, it’s not fallacious to view what that person says with skepticism.
Edit: Typo. Also changed “valid” to “sound”.
If you think his narrative is skewed and based on selectively chosen facts and twisted words, you could correct that.
And other people are doing that in the comments. I addressed your point about ad-hominem specifically. So your response is kinda irrelevant to what I wrote.
People are questioning the narrative the author is painting based on their motivations. That’s different to ad-hominem.
You really want to take the position that narratives can’t be skewed by the overall ethos of the author?
No.
Saying that someone leans right is considered an attack on their character now?