By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information.
“It may seem strange that people who have already attained a position of power through violence invest so much time in justifying their plunder with words. But even plunderers are human beings whose violent ambitions must contend with the guilt that gnaws at them when they meet the eyes of their victims.” — Ta-Nehisi Coates
One of the core aspects of being human has been our ability to be in conversation with each other, to listen, to argue, to convince, to change each other’s minds. This is how ideas emerge and develop. This is how progress happens, how we evolve.
We appear to be at a standstill, however. Or worse, we might even be regressing. With the erosion of truth comes the erosion of discourse. A viewpoint is no longer met with a constructive response that could improve on the original point, but with fallacies and personal attacks. This is happening in our personal exchanges, in the media, and in our politics.
Anything anyone says today can be refuted by ‘it’s not true,’ without justifying such statements. Gaslighting, once the purview of men who are in the habit of belittling women, is now a common practice used to shut down positions someone doesn't like. More insidious even, is to attack the person making the argument. This is known as an ad hominem attack.
An ad hominem attack, in its full name, argumentum ad hominem, is a rhetorical strategy where instead of challenging the argument, someone attacks the character, motive or other attribute of the person making an argument.
There are different kinds of ad hominem attacks. Abusive ad hominem, where someone is insulted. Circumstantial, where a position is challenged due to bias, while it might be relevant, it does not address the merit of the argument. Tu-quoque fallacy, which literally means ‘you too,’ where someone is attacked for allegedly being a hypocrite. And finally, guilt by association, where someone is attacked because they may belong to a group seen as suspicious, unless they denounce the actions of said group. This is particularly dangerous and prevalent in today’s divisive politics of blame.
Every person who participates in the world, in any shape or form, is familiar with such attacks. Every person expressing solidarity with Palestinians today, has likely been met with every kind of ad hominem attack: from being called antisemitic, to a ‘self-hating Jew’ if you’re Jewish, to ignorant, to hateful, to supporting terrorist groups.
Unfortunately, such attacks are very effective. Not only do they evoke an emotional response, but they also distract from the real issue at hand (because the person attacked will spend a lot of time trying to disprove the claims).
While social media platforms have exacerbated the problem, this is not a new phenomenon. It has historical roots in ancient Greece and Rome, and formed some of the core concerns of Plato and Aristotle, who had established foundations for logical argumentation. They warned of the dangers of ad hominem attacks, in particular in how they may influence public opinion while deflecting from the real argument.
On a political level, this can be understood within the framework of propaganda. Politicians use such tactics because it appeals to people’s sense of outrage and indignation, and means they are less likely to think critically. As Ruth Ben-Ghiat writes in Strongmen, a politician will make misogynist and racist comments to shift media attention away from their corruption and incompetence.
So how do we respond?
It’s probably worth reminding ourselves that when someone attacks us rather than our position, if it’s not out of ignorance, it’s because they have no moral ground to stand on. Walking away might, at times, be the best strategy.
Women are experts at withstanding ad hominem attacks, from within the family to the highest professional spaces, women are constantly facing personal attacks (and are expected to defend themselves), often simply for being a woman. Luckily, there are many we can turn to for inspiration, both in the past and the present.
Words, Veronica Yates and illustration, Miriam Sugranyes.
References
The Message, Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Personal Attacks and Deflections: How Arguments Go Off Track, William Rands.
Strongmen: How they rise, why they succeed, how they fall, Ruth Ben-Ghiat.
‘Fallacies,’ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Read here.
‘Ad Hominem,’ Wikipedia.
Further Resources
Sophistical Refutations, Aristotle.
The Republic, Plato.
‘Will the UN Pillory Francesca Albanese?’ Richard Falk, Global Justice in the 21st Century, author’s website.
‘The She Made Him Do It Theory of Everything,’ Rebecca Solnit, Meditations in an Emergency, 26 February 2025. Read here.
“When you exclude people from the conversation, when they don’t have a role in your journalism, when they don’t have a role in your film, when they don’t have a role in your TV, when they don’t have a role in your books, they seize to exist as people and become these kind of cartoon cut-outs that other people make of them. And they become much more easy to kill. That’s on us.” — Ta-Nehisi Coates
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” — Friedrich Nietzsche
“You can cut all the flowers but you cannot keep spring from coming.” — Pablo Neruda
