Fact is: nobody is truly (or genuinely) here. Hello! It's an internet forum; where usually the only thing you learn from other members is:
1) Who they want you to think they are, and
2) What kind of games they like to play under a cloak of anonymity. — Galuchat

"I" am here. Some people may project a prettified image of themselves, but most people "here" don't, as far as I can tell. Pretty much I operate on a "what you see is what you get" basis, whether here or face-to-face.

Yes, the format provides a cloak of anonymity. Two things: the "cloaking feature" fades over time, over many interactions. "Real people" emerge from anonymity after a time. Some people here have been interacting for 10 years. The anonymity feature protects forum users from the ill-intentioned visitor, or the snoop. True, we don't list our actual names, addresses, telephone numbers, places of employment, and so forth. But if Tiff or T. Clark wanted to visit me, I'd hand over the information to them.

I mean, Tiff and T. Clark in person would have to be less of a risk than the hundred guys I brought home from the bar (one at a time) after the briefest of introductions.

How sad.
It's just an internet forum (i.e., an anonymous group of people playing all sorts of different games for all sorts of different reasons). Occassionally, someone writes something worth reading. — Galuchat

There are all sorts of people playing various games in the world, and on the Internet. You might be playing a game here as well. I wonder what your game is.

Unless all communication on an internet forum is conducted using video, a significant amount of information is lost in transmission. — Galuchat

This only follows if you do not adapt your verbal style to the medium you are using. The studies you cite in the previous paragraph only show that there are verbal shortcuts available when you can rely on other channels carrying the rest of the signal. (Trivial example for clarity: I can't point at things here as I might IRL so I have to substitute a description.)

What's more, I'd expect that a certain amount (I don't know how much) of the information I'm not getting by having a purely verbal exchange with you is information I'm not interested in when I'm on this forum. Your ideas are all I'm interested in. I'm not trying to get to know you as a person.

It was unquestionably less civil to call someone a dick than it was for someone to claim your position was sad. The former was bullying, the latter perhaps insensitive. It did seem though from his response that he was unoffended by your middle school taunt, yet by your response it was clear you were incapable of handling criticism maturely. — Hanover

I will plead nolo contendere to a charge of misdemeanor hypocrisy. I like to talk about civility but I also like to call people names sometimes. I usually feel bad about it later, but if feels so good when I'm doing it.

In regard to @Galuchat, he sets out to show contempt for people with the intent to hurt them for his own what, enjoyment? Did you read the things he wrote about Tiff? Disgusting. He deserves a rhetorical slap-down.

As for "handling criticism maturely" it shouldn't surprise you to find out that, after the things you have said to me and about me over the past few weeks, I don't give your criticism much credibility.

As for "handling criticism maturely" it shouldn't surprise you to find out that, after the things you have said to me and about me over the past few weeks, I don't give your criticism much credibility. — T Clark

Sounds like yet another irrelevant ad hom.

Since a philosophical discussion is a conversation like any other, there are of course norms in play that aren't specifically philosophical. What I'm interested in are those cases where one can be mistaken for the other.

This is roughly the debate over ordinary language philosophy, or one version of it, or one perception of one version of it, etc. It goes like this:

A: In normal circumstances, it makes no sense to say 'I know that's a tree'.
B: In normal circumstances, it may be inappropriate to say 'I know that's a tree', but it may nevertheless be true.

This spirals off into a debate about meaning, because both sides know what they're about.

But watch how which side is which can flip:

A: I'm not going to debate this. I am not anti-Semitic.
B: Then you admit you might be.
A: No I don't.
B: But it can only make sense to say "Roth isn't anti-Semitic" if it also makes sense to say "Roth is anti-Semitic."

A now seems to have a choice between admitting that he might be anti-Semitic or admitting that he cannot claim to know he's not. He appears to be playing a losing game.

Sounds like yet another irrelevant ad hom. — Hanover

First of all, it wasn't an ad hominem attack at all. Ad hominem means an attack against an irrelevant personal characteristic for the specific purpose of undermining an argument. I didn't say anything negative about you at all. I only attacked the credibility of your criticism. Even what I said about Galuchat wasn't ad hominem, it was an insult. Carleton once set me straight on the difference.

Also, my comment is clearly relevant. You criticized me and I said I don't find your criticism credible.

Yeah, it was and is ad hom.

Ad hominem means an attack against an irrelevant personal characteristic — T Clark

Not usually irrelevant. And it's not always a fallacy.

This is the false dichotomy fallacy.

What interests me is that the two choices presented don't come out of the same box at all.

Not usually irrelevant. And its not always a fallacy. — frank

Worth some discussion, but probably not here. It doesn't change the fact that what I said about Hanover's criticism was not an ad hominem attack.

It doesn't change that it was. I'll just keep repeating the same thing as long as you think it necessary to keep saying otherwise.

I think that's true and I see it shut down a lot of debate over controversial issues. It's the problem with political correctness. If someone challenges say abortion rights, it's argued they must have no respect for women for example. Well, maybe, or maybe they have a view about life that is just very different.

It doesn't change that it was. I'll just keep repeating the same thing as long as you think it necessary to keep saying otherwise. — Hanover

From Wikipedia:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I still don't see how this applies to what I wrote.

Your failure to give my criticism credibility is based on me being me, which means if I signed my comments by a different name, you'd consider their substance differently. Ad hominum means "to the person," as opposed to the substance. If Hitler says that 2+2=4, its truthfulness is unaffected by his being Hitler. Perhaps the truth of facts he might convey would bei questionable due to lack of veracity, but not any logical assessment.

For example, should you reject the above because you find me not credible, that'd be ad hom. If I tell you you're immature based upon agreed upon facts and you reject it as coming from me, that'd be ad hom.

The natural next step around here is usually to say something like, "The question 'Do I know that's a tree?' is wrongheaded." The problem with that is that unless you can reframe the issues in a really compelling way, you'll be taken simply as dodging the question because your position is untenable. As if you're trying to change the rules of chess because you're about to be checkmated.

For example, should you reject the above because you find me not credible, that'd be ad hom. If I tell you you're immature based upon agreed upon facts and you reject it as coming from me, that'd be ad hom. — Hanover

Here's what I wrote:

As for "handling criticism maturely" it shouldn't surprise you to find out that, after the things you have said to me and about me over the past few weeks, I don't give your criticism much credibility. — T Clark

I said your criticism of me is not credible, not that you aren't. If you want to redefine "ad hominem argument" as "something I don't like," there's not much more to say.

Typical ad hom is: "Well, you would say that." Your response to Hanover basically had that form.

And wiki should change their entry. It's not always fallacious. Sometimes we do downgrade credibility basked on who a person is: known pathological liar, for instance.

A now seems to have a choice between admitting that he might be anti-Semitic or admitting that he cannot claim to know he's not. He appears to be playing a losing game. — Srap Tasmaner

If losing is judged based on something as superficial as emotional reaction, then yes, he appears to be playing a losing game. He would be at risk of sending the wrong message.

But if admitting that he might be antisemitic is like admitting that he might be a Martian, then, in that sense, it's trivial.

Not taking sides or anything, but it sounds more like a Bulverism to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

Sometimes we do downgrade credibility basked on who a person is: known pathological liar, for instance. — frank

It's not a question of credibility; philosophically speaking, arguments have to be addressed on their own merits. Any focus on the origin of the argument as opposed to the argument itself is considered irrelevant, and so fallacious as a counterargument. For example, to dismiss something Trump says as false simply on the basis that he's a pathological liar is fallacious even if it's understandable.

Did you read the things he wrote about Tiff? Disgusting. He deserves a rhetorical slap-down. — T Clark

Did you hear what that naughty boy said about the Emperor and his new clothes? Disgusting. He deserves a rhetorical slap-down.

Good questions, and relevant to the OP, because they address communication in the context of an internet forum. — Galuchat

These are all good points, and of course, I agree, there are important differences between in-person communication and other forms. But such differences do not warrant totally discounting and disparaging communication on the internet as being of no value or importance. Also, it should be noted that internet communication is no different in this respect from old-fashioned letters or print publications. Talking on the phone features more non-verbal signaling than writing, but less than talking face-to-face.

Yes, the format provides a cloak of anonymity. Two things: the "cloaking feature" fades over time, over many interactions. "Real people" emerge from anonymity after a time. Some people here have been interacting for 10 years. The anonymity feature protects forum users from the ill-intentioned visitor, or the snoop. True, we don't list our actual names, addresses, telephone numbers, places of employment, and so forth. But if Tiff or T. Clark wanted to visit me, I'd hand over the information to them. — Bitter Crank

The anonymity of Internet forums is much exaggerated. So, you don't know my legal name. It's not like you know legal names of everyone you interact with face-to-face. And why is it important anyway? Does it matter to you whether you discuss free will or Aristotelian metaphysics with a John Doe or a Joe Q. Public?

And other than their legal names and appearances, forum members are not all that anonymous, as BC notes - in some ways they are less anonymous than people you know in "real life." Just as you recognize people by their appearance or voice every time you meet them, here you can always recognize them by their handles. And in all cases your impression of other people is formed by successive interactions with them. But whereas in other contexts you have to rely on your often faulty memory, here the complete record of everything anyone ever said is permanently on display! How is that for anonymity?

The main thing that makes Internet and other written communication more anonymous and impersonal is the absence of audio-visual impressions, which are important in themselves, and which I think make it easier to form and retain the impression of a person than just a name.

For example, to dismiss something Trump says as false simply on the basis that he's a pathological liar is fallacious even if it's understandable. — Baden

To dismiss Trump's argument on the basis of his character would be a fallacy. But since Trump doesn't present arguments, that is rather a moot point. On the other hand, when Trump simply asserts something as true or false, you can reasonably and confidently dismiss that.

But if Tiff or T. Clark wanted to visit me, I'd hand over the information to them.

I mean, Tiff and T. Clark in person would have to be less of a risk than the hundred guys I brought home from the bar (one at a time) after the briefest of introductions. — Bitter Crank

I appreciate that and feel the same way. Although the big risk with me is that I'm not nearly as charming in person.

No, the fallacy is the argument itself; in this case of the form: Trump made an assertion therefore the assertion is false.

But, yes, all the assertions are false. :p

No, the fallacy is the argument itself; in this case of the form: Trump made an assertion therefore the assertion is false. — Baden

That would not be a fallacy of reasoning, assuming my assessment of Trump's character as a liar and bullshitter is correct.

Trump being a bullshitter and liar doesn't preclude him from making assertions that are true. The argument in the form I presented it is fallacious.

For example, to dismiss something Trump says as false simply on the basis that he's a pathological liar is fallacious even if it's understandable. — Baden

In a courtroom, the testimony of a witness may be painted as suspect because of who the witness is. That can be called an ad hom attack, and it may be reasonable to doubt the witness for the reason given.

If you want to exclude that kind of thing as ad hom you would need to stipulate that.

A now seems to have a choice between admitting that he might be anti-Semitic or admitting that he cannot claim to know he's not. He appears to be playing a losing game. — Srap Tasmaner

If losing is judged based on something as superficial as emotional reaction, then yes, he appears to be playing a losing game. He would be at risk of sending the wrong message.

But if admitting that he might be antisemitic is like admitting that he might be a Martian, then, in that sense, it's trivial. — Sapientia

"Sending the wrong message" is not just a matter of emotional reactions.

But that is not the only issue here. What is the status of Philip Roth's belief that he is not anti-Semitic? Is it right to call this a belief at all, something that could be veridical or not? Is it something he learned by gathering evidence and comparing hypotheses? What if his saying this is a direct report to be treated the way we would treat "I'm in pain." We're rightly not sure whether to call this knowledge at all, but people do resort to this sort of language because what else is there?

I would guess that a survey would show that the vast majority of people on this site, if asked, "Have you stopped beating your significant other?" would like to answer "C. I have not because I never started, and I would have to have started to stop." "No" doesn't logically entail that you are still beating your SO, but the implication is not just a matter of emotional reaction. (Don't forget that "No" could also be selected because it is true full-stop.)