—Henry Miller, "When I Reach for My Revolver”

Often, an ad hominem insinuates that there is a connection between the character traits of a person and the ideas or arguments that the person is putting forward; it is an attempt to discredit a proposition by discrediting the person who articulates it.  It involves pointing out characteristics of the person being attacked that the audience, real or assumed, will tend to perceive negatively, and then concluding that because of these negative traits, the person's arguments and ideas, especially those which were the object of discussion, are also toxic. [...]  When an ad hominem is committed, this pertinent link [between the person and his ideas] does not exist. 

To those in power, all whistle-blowers, dissenters and boat-rockers are obnoxious, at least while they remain lone rebels... The ideas that rebels expound tend not to be attacked by those in power.  The latter are inclined rather to kill the messenger by character assassination. For example, one rebel was said to be a womanizer... bitter... disloyal... and even, in the words of one accuser, dangerously mentally ill.

             —C. Tarvis, social pyschologist

Rather than teaching and encouraging students and other citizens to be offended by criticism, we should be teaching them to contemplate criticism, embrace, and even create from it.  We should be teaching and encouraging them to respond not with facile ad hominem but with logical point-by-point argumentation.  The American Dissident publishes in each issue, especially in the Literary Letters section, the comments made by professors, poets, editors and others manifesting a disquieting inability to respond thusly.  

Citizens in a democracy need to have backbone.  Indeed, a democracy cannot thrive if most of its citizens are thin skinned.  Yet in America far too many of them seem incapable of bearing any criticism at all.  Far too many knee-jerk react to criticism, instead of contemplating, and even creating from it, as the editor does and continues to do (see poems below).  Far too many of the nation's students and professors knee-jerk react to it.  OFFENSIVE has become the sad litmus test—the most common excuse—used to stifle free speech in America today.  Students are regularly encouraged not to have backbone.  The following is a statement made by a Vanderbilt University student, taken from a letter received by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).  What is wrong with the reasoning in it? 

Many of my male friends make gender-related comments and jokes all the time. I don't see that as sexual harassment. Neither would Vanderbilt because I am not complaining about it. However, if I did feel uncomfortable, I am glad to know that I can take advantage of my rights by telling someone, and I know that the offender will face consequences. This person should face consequences, according to the Bill of Rights, because my right to the pursuit of happiness would be hindered. Thus, the Student Handbook is merely trying to protect our rights by making sure others do not abuse their right of free speech.

Clearly, if one makes someone else "feel uncomfortable," by no means does that constitute a reason to stifle the one's right to freedom of speech.  The "offender," as described by the student above regarding anyone who happens to make her feel uncomfortable, should not face consequences for making her "feel uncomfortable."  The First Amendment is clearly on the side of the former, not on that of the latter.  Clearly, Vanderbilt University and its professors have failed that student.  PC and its emphasis on esteem building are the likely culprits.  For more such examples of corrupted thought and corrupted university policies, examine Democracy. 

Nearly all of the criticism received over the years by the editor has been ad hominem in nature. Deplorably, such rhetoric is commonly used by educated poets and academics.   What kind of college or university would churn out so many graduates who, upon hearing or reading opinions they don't like, would resort not to contemplation, vigorous debate, and cogent point-by-point counter-argumentation, but rather to ad hominem?  Indeed, what kind of college or university would seek to stifle vigorous debate, democracy's cornerstone, by implementing, for example, speech codes and free-speech zones?   Sadly, colleges and universities that do so are alarmingly numerous.  The facility of ad hominem makes it difficult to resist.  At times, the editor is himself tempted but, unlike far too many others, does make a conscious effort to resist it. 

Perhaps the shock of sudden, unexpected, and uncustomary criticism, coupled with thin skin, overwhelms the ability of far too many purportedly educated citizens to reason with clarity.  It is amazing the things people will say and write when one simply stands up and expresses ones own opinions.   One anonymous critic simply dismissed all the arguments presented on this very website as "rant."  Poets and professors have called me all sorts of things, including "loser" and "egotistical."  Yet any writer who puts up a website, publishes a literary journal, or simply sends out his or her writing could easily be accused of being egotistical.  That epithet is as vacuous as the rest.

One thing the editor has learned over the years is the seeming impossibility to reason with someone who'd load his or her guns with ad hominem in lieu of logical retort.  Such persons can be amazingly obstinate. 

Because the editor dares choose to question and challenge the established order in much of his writing, those who do not question and challenge it, and in that sense form part of it, often take OFFENSE and reply not with logic and fact, but rather with vacuous ad hominem rhetoric, as if somehow that made them better and eliminated the criticism.  Each of the persons listed below, shot gunning ad hominem was challenged to find one point the editor had made and counter it with clear reasoning.  Unfortunately, each refused to do so.  By the way, the editor has taken the liberty to broaden the definition of ad hominem to include calling the argument itself names, as in "rant," "diatribe," and "paranoid stuff."   Finally, one might easily fall into the trap of thinking that if so many people have thus dissed the editor, then maybe they're right and he's wrong.  Such people are urged to contemplate Henrik Ibsen, “An Enemy of the People”: 

The majority never has right on its side.  Never, I say!  That is one of these social lies against which an independent, intelligent man must wage war.  Who is it that constitute the majority population of a country?  Is it the clever folk or the stupid?  I don’t imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over.

T

.......................................................................................................................

The following are a few of the poems the editor wrote directly inspired from ad hominem rhetoric.  Always I send such poems to those who inspired them. The message here is quite simple:  Rather than be offended by criticism, embrace it, contemplate it, and create from it!

Poem for a Rank-Out Artiste

(try to talk to them/ and you become one of/ them.)

—Bukowski, “heavy dogs in cement shoes”

A fellow wrote me, pissed off—really pissed off—
that I’d described the sister of the director
of the local book festival, which only invited
Chamber-of-Commerce-friendly writers and poets,

as “a chubby woman with red marks on her face
(wart removal or skin cancer?).”

Yet it was only a simple descriptive line of reality,
written in the middle of the essay I’d posted.
But he claimed I was making fun of the woman’s
appearance, for which he exploded in epithets:
“your poetry has all the grace and dance of a
defunct air-conditioning unit” and
“the wit and liveliness of a retired chamber pot.”

Could the “wart comment” alone have elicited
such antipathy for me and my writing?
Well, just days before he’d sent a poem,
which I edited patiently, but then suggested
he send it elsewhere.

Then the onslaught assailed: “ya dork,” he called me,
“lost cause,” “MisterFlawwwwless,” and even
“SIRCHICKENSHIT.”

Twas the old academic two step, barely disguised—
the thin, vacuous rhetoric rolled out as artillery
always in an effort to divert attention from the crux,
and how successful it could be!

“How can I dismiss your arguments
when I don't even know what they are?”*
………………………………………….
*The words are M.P. Powers’.

A Poem for the Edification of Lit Cogs

Intellectually I sharpen from constant collision

with the established-order—its myriad components

and ubiquitous legions of abnegating proponents.

“I agree with much of what you're saying,” wrote

one such editor,* who then proceeded to argue

that what I was saying was actually

“rant” and “sour grapes.”

But how could an intelligent person agree with that,

I wondered, bringing it to his attention, though in vain;

besides, why should the literary agora be open only

to sweet grapes?

“But if your tone is anything like your tone here, I

wouldn't be interested in it,” he stated with regards

another critical proposal of mine.

Thus, my approach was off, my tone wrong, and

of course my taste not in good taste at all.

But was Villon’s verse written in the right tone or

Solzhenitsyn’s prose or Bukowski’s or how about

Thomas Paine’s?  Was his written in good taste? 

But to that, the constituent simply closed the debate

with a curt “good luck with the browbeating.”

The logic dies, as all too often it does

                                                with

                                                            diehards.

…………………………………………………………

*C.L. Bledsoe, editor of Ghoti Magazine

Poem #2 for the Edification of Lit Cogs

An editor wrote that my “general frustration with

some of the ‘norms’ and ‘protocols’ of the literary

world were well-founded and needed

to be expressed”* and

that he was “really drawn” to my writing. 

“I must say.  I actually agree with a lot

of what

you say.” 

Three months later I wrote him a reminder, asking

if he were still drawn to what I had to say and would

consider publishing something of what I had to say.

But in an unsurprising about face, he responded

“I'm not wanting to out and out burn bridges because,

well we’re a writer-friendly publication.”

Yet how, I wondered, had the prime concern of

literary publishers, apart from excellence—

oh, but of course!—

become apprehension of burning bridges, while

“writer friendly” equated with truth avoidance?

Had the Janus-faced politician turned role model? 

“But I do want to take on (more) controversial issues,

and I do want to give voice to ‘unpopular’ views,”

he proudly declared, as if fence straddling had been

                        elevated to one of the fine arts.

“Some degree of prudence is needed, but not to the

point of sacrificing authenticity and fairness.”

Would he, I wondered, be presenting himself one day

as candidate for the Congress or Senate? 

…………………………………………………………

*John Amen, Chief Editor of Pedestal Magazine

Oil of Vitriol

What a blessed world of snivelling nobodies we live in!  Oil of vitriol must be applied. 

            —Ralph Waldo Emerson 

Besides excellence—oh, but of course!—,

the editors often boast, in chorus, how open

they are

to style, theme, and subject matter. 

One of them, however, wrote with evident

scornful implication and close-mindedness to

my chosen theme, if not style, that there

            was a difference between

            vigorous debate and vitriol or slander.

Yet nobody had ever sued me for defamation;

while for the other denigration, a Chief Justice*

had argued convincingly that the First Amendment

was designed to invite dispute, induce a condition

of unrest, and even stir people to anger.

But unlike the First, that editor’s magazine was,

in the Chief’s own words, fashioned as a vehicle

for dispensing tranquillizers to the people. 

……………………………………………………………………

*Chief Justice William O. Douglas also noted that the “prime function” of the

First “was to keep debate open to ‘offensive’ as well as to ‘staid’ people.”

In a Populace of Ad Hominids

(Inspired by Bradley Buchanan and Justin Evans)

When a citizen

actually manifests

the courage to

stand apart

from the herd

and overtly question

and challenge

what it dares not,

the herd will likely

pounce upon him

with ad hominem. 

Evidently, when one

stands up upon

ones hind legs,

one makes herd

ad hominids

look cowardly,

and

nobody likes to look

like a coward,

not even an ad hominid!