14 Responses to “argumentum ad labelum”

1. #1 |  Bill |  November 6th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

   Wouldn’t Latinized “Naomi” be “nauseum”? Therefore, the argument would be “argumentum ad nauseum”.

2. #2 |  Brandon Bowers |  November 6th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

   Bush served two terms because of this kind of thinking, Klein has gotten rich off of this kind of thinking, Obama (you’re either with me or selfish) has become president-elect with this kind of thinking, it seems to be working for people. Hmm… maybe this article would be more effective if it went like “If you take a binary view of the world, you’re against us.”

3. #3 |  smurfy |  November 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

   Well, shock doctrine translates to: offensus doctrina (with a liberal translation of the work shock).

4. #4 |  freedomfan |  November 6th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

   This is another example of what I call the bipolar fallacy, which I have alluded to here before in reference to Klein

   This is common on the left and the right as well. I have to imagine that an experience many libertarians share is one where people assume ideology from the first political conversation we have and then have a tough time getting past it. Most of the people I first meet talking about free markets assume I am a pro-war corporatist conservative and most I first meet talking about police power assume I must be a dope-smoking hippie liberal. It’s easily as amusing as it is annoying.

   The basic idea is that people assume a false dichotomy of a world divided into two ideological camps and the further false assumption that placing someone into one or the other camp based on one issue means that he must be in that camp on all issues.

   Thus, we may see it assumed that someone who is pro-abortion rights must also be pro-minimum wage laws because the abortion stance makes him a “liberal” and the minimum wage stance is also associated with liberals, even though one issue really has nothing to do with the other. And the bizarre thinking extends in either direction, so that someone who opposes government make-work projects must be a pro-drug war nut because those are both “conservative” positions, though the rational correspondence is tenuous at best and, from a libertarian perspective, the positions are ideologically opposed.

   And, there is a complementary effect of the bipolar fallacy. A common instance is that assumption that one must be an ideological ally of anyone who opposes the same thing.

   Of course, normal human reactions add to the picture. If an observer is initially inclined to like A, then he assumes A thinks the same way he does. Whereas, if one is inclined to dislike A, then the assumption is that A must be on the opposite side of (and “wrong on”) a host of issues. That initial inclination to like or dislike is often formed from exposure to just one of A’s opinions.

   Anyway, that’s one proposed name for the phenomenon: The bipolar fallacy.

5. #5 |  InFrequently Asked Questions |  November 6th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

   I Like It…

   Jason Kuznicki calls it Counting Past Two.

   Ed Brayton has been trying to enter the phrase argumentum ad labelum into the vocabulary. Though he also calls it Binary Thinking, which I have in the past as well.

   …

6. #6 |  SJE |  November 6th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

   Regarding freedomfan’s “bipolar fallacy”

   I don’t think its a fallacy to think that Naomi Klein is bipolar, or some other kind of crazy.

7. #7 |  Warren |  November 6th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

   You’ve either posted in this thread or you haven’t.

8. #8 |  Cynical In CA |  November 6th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

   I find it interesting that a post about ad hominems would find its way on to this blog.

   Ad hominems leveled by another against oneself are actually informative. They let you know you won the argument.

9. #9 |  Danny |  November 6th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

   I get this all the time. I said that wasn’t too excited about an Obama presidency and people said, “Oh, well you must have enjoyed the past 8 years of Bush, huh? I can’t believe you want McBush to continue his legacy!!!”

   You had to either want Obama or McCain to win? Were those really the only options? I truly wasn’t aware I was breaking some sort of law of nature, or dividing by zero or something.

10. #10 |  perlhaqr |  November 6th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    I tend to break the world down into large divisions of “people who share my views” and “people who are wrong”. But I recognize that it’s possible to be wrong in many, many different ways. ;)

11. #11 |  Helmut O' Hooligan |  November 6th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

    Great, great article! These are some of the points I was trying to make (or should have made) when I commented on Radely’s “Comments Vitriol” post. Mr. Brayton summed up the problem better than I. Good work Ed!

12. #12 |  SJE |  November 6th, 2008 at 11:51 pm

    Helmut et al. The great things that keep Radley’s blog civil (a) that Radley himself isn’t nuts (b) those commentors that get too nasty or wacko get their karma downgraded. Its pretty clear what the pool of readers will tolerate. I actually find the comments very useful, in that they add additional perspectives and datapoints

13. #13 |  Bill Clinton |  November 7th, 2008 at 11:38 am

    But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy.

14. #14 |  RWW |  November 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    I hope so, since it would be immoral not to break the law today.

---