[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.