[ardy42]

> Ad hom. If you think this particular paper is invalid and/or cherry-picks points, then refute it specifically

No, it doesn't work like that. Reputation matters, and taking it into account is a way to deal with the sad fact of the Bullshit asymmetry principle. Jacobolus is basically saying Cato has cried wolf too many times to be given the benefit of the doubt anymore.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_pr...: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

[davidivadavid]

But then Thomas Piketty also has a reputation as an extreme leftist. So we shouldn't listen to his arguments in the first place, I guess?

[kortilla]

How pathetic can an idea be that it can’t hold up to rational discourse and must instead be defended by an ad hominem attack?

Cato is known for having bias, not for spewing bullshit. The NYTimes has bias and Piketty has bias. The bullshit asymmetry principle never applies when discussing ideas regardless of the bias. Otherwise you could never argue with any human.

That principle is a lazy cudgel used by people in echo chambers who are incapable of defending ideas or linking to simple refutations of re-used arguments.