when I was a boy, — T Clark

Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Chateau de Chassilier wine?

What I do notice is that the tolerance towards sharp debate has gone down. It is a society wide trend I feel so nothing different here than in reel life. The ad homs and the snide remarks were all there back in the day as much as now, but the hurt or indignation against them was less.
— Tobias

Now that you have drawn my attention to this, I think you are quite on the mark. So the question arrises, why should this be so? — Banno

Global socio-economic crisis. People's energy and attention are more focused on making ends meet and making it through the day.

Taking ad homs and snide remarks in stride requires a measure of social and material comfort and security in one's life.

It's similar as with humor. I don't know if there's a study on how well people indulge in humor under acute and chronic duress, but there should be such studies. Common sense says that when one's life is hard (socially and economically), one will be less able and willing to indulge in humor.

...those who do not respond to the criticism, but instead to the criticiser. — Banno

Not all ad hominems are fallacious:

Valid types of ad hominem arguments
Argument from commitment
An ad hominem argument from commitment is a type of valid argument that employs, as a dialectical strategy, the exclusive utilization of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.e., arguments constructed on the basis of what other people hold to be true. This usage is generally only encountered in specialist philosophical usage or in pre-20th century usages.[30] This type of argument is also known as the ex concessis argument (Latin for "from what has been conceded already").[31]

Ad hominem arguments, testimony and authority
Ad hominem arguments are relevant where the person being criticised is advancing arguments from authority, or testimony based on personal experience, rather than proposing a formal syllogism.[32]

An example is a dialogue at the court, where the attorney cross-examines an eyewitness, bringing to light the fact that the witness was convicted in the past for lying. This might suggest the conclusion that the witness should not be trusted, which would not be a fallacy.[33] Related issues arise with arguments from authority. If a witness claiming to be a medical expert asserts, on the basis of their expert knowledge, that a particular product is harmless, an opponent could make the ad hominem argument that the witness' expertise is less than claimed, or that the witness has been paid by the makers of the product.

More complex issues arise in cases where the conclusion is merely probable rather than deducible with certainty. An advocate for a particular proposition might present a body of evidence supporting that proposition while ignoring evidence against it. Pointing out that the advocate is not neutral, but has a conflict of interest, is a valid form of ad hominem argument.

/.../

Criticism as a fallacy
Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[34] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Valid_types_of_ad_hominem_arguments

Not all ad hominems are fallacious: — baker

Yep.

So the question arrises, why should this be so? — Banno

We are more or less compelled to move with the zeitgeist, no? When I started posting in PF, for example, I didn't take sexism particularly seriously. Now, I do, and I think I should.

Now that you have drawn my attention to this, I think you are quite on the mark. So the question arises, why should this be so? — Banno

My sociological explanation would go somewhere along this line: there are two mutually reinforcing trends with us since the 1960's. The first is democratization / emancipation the second is a culture of authenticity. These trends mutually reinforce each other.

Democratization has given many people the chance to speak out and raise their voice. Awareness rose that by and large our western consumer culture was based on all kind of hierarchies. Increased welfare, increased schooling and increased means of communications meant hitherto marginalized groups who suffered the most from these taken for granted hierarchies such as the working class, women and ethnic minorities gained more access to the discourse (sorry Banno ;) ) Rightly so, they occupied their spot in the market place of opinions. Their was a conservative backlash against it, it becomes visible especially now, but the traditional 'left' was sensitive to this development. It led to a questioning of the approach taken by the educated to the uneducated. Many are now sensitive to the idea that what they argue for is tinged with all kinds of prejudice and become hesitant. The idea emerges that what is being said is not 'fact', but opinion, at least the people bringing forth 'facts' shun from stating them as such.

Their authority dwindles for two reason. A. they were part of the same system of marginalisation therefore lost credibility. B. they feel uneasy donning the mantle of authority because they know they were. Democratization radicalized into identity politics. Everybody, not just the 'traditionally' marginalised groups, is a victim of one thing or other. (I was a little boy with glasses, not good!). That means everyone's sensitive spot must be taken into account leading to pussyfooting in debates.

The second reason is the culture of authenticity which I would relate to 1960's youth culture as well. Enlightnement liberated us from the church. The second world war, Vietnam and the environmental crisis liberated us from the idea that tradition and science make us moral. The source of morality can therefore not be found within a community but has to reside within oneself. The result is that everyone is a unique individual who is deserving of being loved and cherished and not hurt. Everyone reaches morality his or her own way, be it through community activism, boy scouting, LSD or free love. Since there is not one path to morality and 'knowledge' but many and since each individual is 'worth it', each individual feels free to claim his or her space, wherever and whenever. Why would the seat of congress not be occupied by a shaman wearing bull horns? He is at least, authentic and less corrupted than the satanists at the top.

The traditions reinforce each other. The top (the well educated holding higher social positions) become less self assured while the bottom (those that do not, and yes I am aware of the connotations of this metaphor, but I do not know how else to tell the story, no value judgments are intended) become more self assured. Established but often tacitly accepted rules of argumentation are called into question, or worse, not taught anymore. Equal worth becomes equated with equality of each opinion. The fallaciousness of that equation gets lost. So when someone is argumentatively butt kicked we do not accept it anymore. It is not a loss to a better opponent we have to accept, according to the rules of the game, but an unwarranted attack on our individual or group identity and self worth.

As for my own normative position on this (not that it matters but anyway) I hold the first trend to be a necessary correction of systemic inequality. The second trend though I think is pernicious especially coupled with the first one, because there is a tension between the two. The legitimation of self assertion it brings might well lead to new hierarchies and undermine democratization eventually. People flee into mysticism, others, feeling threatened start clamoring for a restoration of old privileges..

Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Chateau de Chassilier wine? — Banno

Thanks for that. I'd never seen it before. Linked below.



And people say this isn't a legitimate philosophy forum.

I'd never seen it before. — T Clark

:scream:

And people say this isn't a legitimate philosophy forum. — T Clark

You have seen the Bruces, haven't you?

As for my own normative position on this (not that it matters but anyway)... — Tobias

Who's, then, matters? A rhetorical question, of course. We are each obliged to act despite not having sufficient grounds for acting rationally. Hence we adopt various heuristics, often post hoc, to justify our actions. And because this is an act of justification, it is necessarily a social act; we reach for the very same excuses used by those around us. Hence @Baden has been led by the zeitgeist to recognise sexism when he sees it. And the forums are better for it, one supposes, if the result is member diversity.

Sometimes folk are wrong, you and I included. It matters that we draw attention to each others inconsistencies.

You have seen the Bruces, haven't you? — Banno

I have heard the song, if that's what you mean. I find the Bruces sketch itself deeply offensive as a reflection of rabid Australaphobia.

I linked to the philosopher's football match in a previous post, but the link has been shut down.

I thought they actually were the members of the philosophy department of the University of Wooloomooloo, Bruce.

A lot depends on whether Pfhorrest is posting or not. — bert1

Not sure if compliment or insult. (Based on past interactions with you, I'm guessing compliment; if so, thanks!)

I have noticed that you have posted less in the last few weeks and it really did make me wonder if it was because you thought that the site had deteriorated recently. I have noticed that a number of members I have seen on the site have previously not posting in the last month or so. Of course, it may be that lockdowns are easing and that you have better avenues for ideas.

It's a combination of several things.

One of them is that I generally felt that most interactions here were emotionally negative already, and many people (elsewhere in my life) were advising me to stop reading or posting here for the sake of my own happiness. But I felt obligated to myself to continue seeking constructively critical input on my own philosophical writings, which is what kept me coming back despite that advice. Then the admins here asked me to stop doing that, so I had much less reason to visit. (I discovered that /r/philosophy is a much better place for that, anyway).

But on top of that, my schedule IRL has changed a lot in recent weeks, and I just don't have a ton of time to engage on forums for fun. I was still reading here, just not posting much, for a while, but ended up reading even less over time.

And then a week ago some computer troubles lost me all my bookmarks and recent sites, and because of that I forgot this place even existed until just now.