Ad hominem applies to arguments. The source of an argument does not affect the soundness of that argument.
But it’s not a fallacy to question an overarching narrative based on the source. If a person keeps selectively choosing facts and twisting words to forward a specific narrative, it’s not fallacious to view what that person says with skepticism.
And other people are doing that in the comments. I addressed your point about ad-hominem specifically. So your response is kinda irrelevant to what I wrote.
People are questioning the narrative the author is painting based on their motivations. That’s different to ad-hominem.
It absolutely matters. We need to consider that a right-wing actor is likely to exaggerate claims against an organization that is ostensibly socially-minded and represents anti-corporate interests, like Mozilla.
I’m not denying that Mozilla has a history of poor governance. But they are the competitor to Google here. You need to consider these things in context to understand what anti-corporate means for the internet.
The author clearly has an issue with the money going to left-wing orgs specifically. They’re making a big point out of all the antiracism and one of their bullet points asks why Mozilla has no problem alienating their user base.
Great post. Does it matter if it’s right or left wing? How did you concluded that
Lunduke is known to have been defending quite extremist (on the right side of the political spectrum) view point on certain subjects.
As such, many people, me included, do not really like him.
It’s still just ad hominem.
Ad hominem applies to arguments. The source of an argument does not affect the soundness of that argument.
But it’s not a fallacy to question an overarching narrative based on the source. If a person keeps selectively choosing facts and twisting words to forward a specific narrative, it’s not fallacious to view what that person says with skepticism.
Edit: Typo. Also changed “valid” to “sound”.
If you think his narrative is skewed and based on selectively chosen facts and twisted words, you could correct that.
And other people are doing that in the comments. I addressed your point about ad-hominem specifically. So your response is kinda irrelevant to what I wrote.
People are questioning the narrative the author is painting based on their motivations. That’s different to ad-hominem.
deleted by creator
No.
Saying that someone leans right is considered an attack on their character now?
It absolutely matters. We need to consider that a right-wing actor is likely to exaggerate claims against an organization that is ostensibly socially-minded and represents anti-corporate interests, like Mozilla.
Seems pretty corporate interests to me.
I’m not denying that Mozilla has a history of poor governance. But they are the competitor to Google here. You need to consider these things in context to understand what anti-corporate means for the internet.
The only reason they’re a competitor to Google is because Google allows them to be by giving them money for the default search engine.
They’re just sailing their boat until it sinks.
The author clearly has an issue with the money going to left-wing orgs specifically. They’re making a big point out of all the antiracism and one of their bullet points asks why Mozilla has no problem alienating their user base.