It’s no secret that the internet has always been an avenue for political discussions and debates. However, there’s been a noticeable uptick on political discourse recently on social media (at least, that’s what I’ve been seeing on my timeline) ever since the quarantine started. There’s a lot of factors to this. With the pandemic hitting our country like a plague and exposing just how unprepared the government was for this type of nationwide emergency, more people are inclined to vent their frustrations with the administration. The news, too, is overwhelming online (most news outlets are relying on their websites rather than their telecasts during the quarantine). And there’s the fact that a lot of people right now are stuck in their homes with nothing else to do but look at their phones and write lengthy diatribes about whatever. It’s only natural that all this would lead to more online discourse taking place.
I’ve seen some acquaintances take part in this myself. There are some who actually have provided me with interesting insight on the country’s situation, especially those who don’t share a similar background as me. However, there are a select few who have been acting like they’re back in elementary school (with petty counter-arguments like “mama mo” or “rami mo sinabi sis”), despite being college graduates.
One thing I’ve noticed in these discussions is that these people will resort to making use of ad hominem attacks when they can’t seem to provide anything to the conversation. To them, a political discussion is not a conversation—it’s a fight, and they’ll lodge as many insults at you as they want to “win.”
In case you’re not familiar with what an ad hominem attack is, it’s a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on faulty reasoning. Specifically, ad hominem is an argument that attacks the person you’re engaging discourse with rather than their stance on a certain issue. This can take the form of taking a blow at someone’s appearance and background even if that has no connection to your conversation. We can see this type of fallacy being used in one of the president’s late-night addresses, where he poked fun at Chel Diokno’s teeth.
Another example of this is the viral tweets of Twitter user Ang Dalubhasa, which show how even relatives can deploy these kinds of abusive arguments at each other. In a series of texts, his uncle, aunt and cousins red-tagged him (red-tagging is a propaganda tactic directed at those who are critical of the government used to deem these critics as communists and terrorists, which the administration could then use as a justification to target them), accused him of using his degree against them (he’s a UP student) and called him out for being rude, despite the fact that they were the ones who started hurling insults. In one instance, his aunt showered him with about a dozen texts, all with insults (and also featured other fallacies such as appeal to pity and appeal to authority), and accused him of being rude for not answering. When he finally did answer, she retorted that he was being a smart ass. Admittedly, Ang Dalubhasa also employed fallacious arguments in his replies—when someone’s hurling so much abuse at you, I won’t blame you for hurling some of it back.
Often, I’ve seen people resorting to attacking someone else’s looks based on their public display photo or posts on social media, even if they’re virtually strangers. This can go in tandem with people ooking into the other person’s profile just to look for some dirt/secret they can use for their conversation.
Resorting to ad hominem attacks is never the best way to get your point across. It’s really hard to understand one’s side when they’re insulting you. It immediately invalidates your argument (although of course, if you’re purposefully making use of fallacies to maliciously steer the conversation away ala Kellyanne Conway, that’s another can of worms).
Committing fallacies doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person (it can happen in daily conversations and it doesn’t always involve making the person you’re talking to look bad), however resorting to ad hominems always to get your point across does reflect who you are as a person. People would think twice in hearing you out if you constantly treat them with verbal abuse. Even if you think you have good intentions, there are just some lines you shouldn’t cross.
Many people don’t know that they’re using fallacies in their arguments. And that’s okay, there are a lot of fallacies out there and I don’t expect everyone to memorize all of them. Still, educating ourselves about them, especially ad hominems, is a pretty good way to start understanding how to talk about uncomfortable topics, especially on things we don’t see eye to eye on. Hopefully, you’ll remember this the next time you’re engaging in political discourse with someone.
Art by Tricia Guevara
Follow Preen on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and Viber
Related Stories:
Vicomania: Why we should be wary of political idolatry
Taken for fools: Why we all lose when fake quotes trend
The not-so-casual cruelty in “We are the virus.”
Four Things I Learned From Online Arguments That Helped with Parenting