[bena]

I like how their description of "Refuting the central point" is "refuting the central point" without explicitly telling us how that is different from "Refutation".

Also "Name Calling" is a form of "Ad Hominem".

And why is "using quotes" higher up than "reasoning and supporting evidence"?

Also, isn't the entire pyramid about the level of counter argument? So, contradiction is inherent in the process. It really seems like "Counteragrument", "Refutation", and "Refuting the central point" are all about the same thing. And if they are different then "Refutation" and "Counterargument" are ordered wrong. Because I think using reasoning and supporting evidence would be stronger than quotes.

So, really, this pyramid could be like 4 layers. Ad-hominem, Tone Policing, Simple Contradiction, Counter Argument

[dragontamer]

And yet, Ad Hominem is useful, especially since certain channels are clearly propaganda.

Is it a shortcut? Yes. But as the blogpost points out, misinformation spreads far more quickly than truth. Its easier to shortcut and label certain outlets as propaganda channels, to help focus the discussion on the few channels which are reliable (Associated Press is good and neutral, and mainly factual)

[bena]

Ad hominem is never useful.

It doesn't tell me anything about the other side and tells me more about you. You don't like the other side. That's what I now know.

And misinformation usually has one of the problems that would put it further down the pyramid than actual arguments. It's usually ad hominem or tone policing itself. Or sometimes just a straight up lie.

And pointing out those elements would fall under Counter Argument.

Not everything negative is ad hominem.

[dragontamer]

> You don't like the other side. That's what I now know.

And that's very useful for establishing which sources we should rely upon in a shared discussion.

My sister's husband was quoting Breitbart news to me. I let him know that I believed that was a propaganda channel. In many discussions, its very important to establish who is, or isn't, a trusted source of information.

-------------

There are others who quote Elon Musk's tweets to me. Many of those tweets have no basis in reality IMO, so I let them know that I don't trust them, and I ask them for another source of information.

[bena]

> And that's very useful for establishing which sources we should rely upon in a shared discussion.

Not necessarily. If someone doesn't like the dictionary, for example, then you're not really dealing with someone who is looking for actual information about the definitions of words.

Calling Breitbart a propaganda channel doesn't say anything except you think "propaganda" is a negative word and you don't like Breitbart. If you would instead have told him of the many times it promoted misinformation and conjectural outrage over substance and you don't feel like sifting through the chaff for any possible wheat so by default you don't treat Breitbart as a source of reliable news. That would be different.