Ad Hominimum attacks are often bad. However some bigots say they are fine with gay people, they just hate that “lifestyle choice” (“hate the sin, love the sinner”), and that feels like the same argument?

Aren't there topics which are _inherently_ personal? Does that mean that a “no personal attacks”/“no ad hominum arguments” rule requires some topics to be not discussed?

Show thread

(I'm totes in favor of a “no homophobia” (etc) rule obviously. I'm just musing & thinking out loud)

Show thread

Personally, I don't think a blanket “no personal attacks” rule is good. If someone's arguing in bad faith, or has a real motive, then it's OK to bring it up IMO

Show thread

@ebel i often try to consider intent, and the balance of power when assessing this kind of thing

there is never a blanket rule that works, you always have to exercise some form of subjective evaluation to decide what's acceptable or not, imho

Sign in to participate in the conversation
⛧ MOYTURA ⛧

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!