Browse the comments section of recent news articles online. What are some of the most common fallacies committed?
Ad hominem fallacy is rampant in various comment sections of Filipino-based news pages. It actually got me thinking about how this came to a point where it has become normalized in refuting arguments. I came up with two interesting propositions. First, I think this is a product or reflection of one's upbringing. I grew up on the streets and I remember how most of my playmates resort to calling names to the other kids when having typical kids' quarrels. If they were not reprimanded by their guardians during their childhood, there is a huge chance they are now the adults who commit the fallacy. Second, as Filipinos who love humor, the majority of us give "license" to these personal attacks because it is humorous and gives us laughs. However, again these are just assumptions or hypotheses and perhaps something that the class could think about also.
I also would like to mention the one I raised in class regarding forcing a dichotomy (or false dichotomy fallacy) whenever there is incompetency in the government. People, mostly loyalists of a politician, would say something like "So sinong gusto niyong ipalit? or "So gusto niyo mga Liberal ulit ang nasa position?" in reports that expose a government official's ineffective leadership and management skills. This is also a prime example of shifting the arguments and not directly addressing the issue.
I also would like to mention the one I raised in class regarding forcing a dichotomy (or false dichotomy fallacy) whenever there is incompetency in the government. People, mostly loyalists of a politician, would say something like "So sinong gusto niyong ipalit? or "So gusto niyo mga Liberal ulit ang nasa position?" in reports that expose a government official's ineffective leadership and management skills. This is also a prime example of shifting the arguments and not directly addressing the issue.
What a wonderful insight to the question, Vince. As I have mentioned in my answer, Ad hominem fallacy is frequently used by people commenting on social media. I agree with the points that you have raised regarding the frequent use of the Ad hominem fallacy since one's upbringing can definitely affect the way we behave online. Moreover, it is easy to argue using personal attacks on someone rather than answering the questions raised by the one you are arguing with. Lastly, false dichotomy is also a fallacy that is used by people who want to shift the arguments present and ask irrelevant questions.
I totally agree that ad hominem is the most common fallacy in social media. I usually see this on Facebook and Twitter. I agree with your propositions and I think that it's tied to our culture, sadly. I think Filipinos are full of pride, so when someone is cornered into an argument, the best escape without appearing defeated is ad hominem. I also grew up on the streets, and I remembered when kids are fighting they would insult their opponents or even their parents so the other kid will cry and go home. I also agree with false dichotomy. I read comments during the height of elections, and even until now, that when someone says something about BBM, another will comment about Leni even if it is not in any way connected.
Those are interesting and thought-provoking insights you have presented, Vince! I agree with what you shared that most, if not all, of the fallacies committed in different comment sections on Filipino news pages, are Ad Hominem. Further, to your insight of Filipinos using humor as a guise to attack another is also rampant and often either ignored or not noticed much since the initial reaction would be (commonly) laughing at the punchline delivered. Usually, to add, such reactions would also stem from a whole different discussion that entirely focuses on the humor delivered and had strayed from the initial topic at hand.
This is an interesting point of view, Vince. I did realize that you could connect Filipinos' cultural implications to the possible prevalence of the ad hominem fallacy online. To add, I think this can also be related to our love for degradation as entertainment. For instance, Filipinos love creating memes whenever there are celebrity photos, screenshots, or viral news which commonly points out the "lutang" face of the person involved or gives comments about their weird voice or stance. One proof of such is during the election period when apologists use "Leni lugaw lutang" memes in the comment section whenever an issue about Marcos is brought up. This is also true with comedians in the Philippines such as Vice Ganda back in the year 2016-2018 where most of her jokes are directed to attack a person as a way of being funny.
While browsing through Facebook, I noticed that most comments under political posts frequently contain hasty generalizations. People often make snap judgments based only on a person's membership with or association with particular groups. Typically, the comments accuse or denounce the individual or group(s), removing it from the context of the actual problem.
Another common fallacy that I have observed is the Ad Hominem one which is frequently used by Filipinos who want to attack the personal appearance or attributes of the person they are arguing with. I have seen that phony or troll accounts are more prone to use this specific fallacy since they don't care about the consequences that they will face since they do not use their real names and pictures.
Another common fallacy that I have observed is the Ad Hominem one which is frequently used by Filipinos who want to attack the personal appearance or attributes of the person they are arguing with. I have seen that phony or troll accounts are more prone to use this specific fallacy since they don't care about the consequences that they will face since they do not use their real names and pictures.
I do agree with you Quim that most comments often are some form of hasty generalization, especially when looking over posts related to politics. If I may also add that even in posts that resonates positively with the commenter, there are still hasty generalization that is, of time, totally unrelated to the initial topic shared.
I agree with you, Quim. I would like to add as well that hasty generalization can also be observed especially in news articles about UP's rankings and awards. People would comment that all of the students at UP are members of the NPA and that the university should be closed down because of the poisonous mindset that professors teach students. This is a form of hasty generalization as it dismisses the importance of diving deep into the characteristics of activist groups and classifications of those who resist adhering to the questionable form of governance.
I agree Quim! Netizens often use Ad Hominen and Hast generalizations not just in political topics but in general. They often do not use logic or reasoning with their arguments and just post unnecessary comments about one's apperance or intellect instead of proving their point.
I agree with how people are quick to comment their opinions based on a few information. Hasty generalization occurs because of the lack of initiative of people to actually source more credible information before joining a discussion online.
Social media is full of Ad Hominem. I noticed that when people are arguing, those that seem to be losing, would start commenting screenshots of photos or profile pictures of their opponents in an attempt to make fun of, insult, and divert attention. It is very common in the Facebook comment section and even on Twitter. I also noticed that arguments in social media, especially about politics, usually have the fallacy of arguing in a circle. When they are campaigning for their candidate they would just repeat themselves instead of proving why or disproving the other party's claim.
Moreover, I have observed that people tend to use big words when arguing, especially in English. They would use words that are rarely used even if there is a simple word counterpart. Usually, it is to sound intelligent or to intimidate the opponent. I cannot pinpoint exactly what is the fallacy since it kind of depends on the statement, but it falls under the fallacies of language, maybe between ambiguity and verbalism.
Moreover, I have observed that people tend to use big words when arguing, especially in English. They would use words that are rarely used even if there is a simple word counterpart. Usually, it is to sound intelligent or to intimidate the opponent. I cannot pinpoint exactly what is the fallacy since it kind of depends on the statement, but it falls under the fallacies of language, maybe between ambiguity and verbalism.
I agree with your insights regarding the question, Abegail. Ad hominem is prevalent in social media especially in the comments section of Facebook where we can see that people make fun of one's appearance and physical attributes whenever they don't have a logical rebuttal to the argument. Moreover, I have also observed that people who uses high falutin words are often people who want to look smart and intelligent in the eyes of many even though their argument and insight is not related to the post or comment.
I agree, Abby. Ad hominem has become so prevalent that we already tend to expect it when viewing comments or even arguing, ourselves. I also agree that people tend to just keep repeating themselves without substantiating their claims. The argument usually just end with "Basta, [insert claim]", which fails to address the claims of the other side.
This is true, Abby. I think we can consider using highfalutin words especially when it does not fit in the arguments as a way of shifting the argument, aside from ambiguity and verbalism that you've mentioned. I also noticed that there are fanatics (like the case of Jam Magno or others who reside abroad) that used this kind of tactic to intimidate critics.
Interesting observation, Abby. I totally agree with you and the class that Ad Hominem is very common on social media. The tendency of Filipinos to comment photos is another tactic they use to divert the argument to the flaws of the person, which I find really disappointing. It becomes worse when they publicly post the photos of the person, and the post gains attention. Admittedly, there are times when one would feel that the person deserves the criticisms, but I believe the criticisms should be limited to condemning the wrongdoing and not the "physical characteristics" (which people love to point out) of the person.
Great point Abby! Aside from Ad Hominem which is rampant in social media in general. The use of "intelligent" language or sometimes just using the English language is often seen as an intimidation tactic by some people even thought they rarely make any sense and just blurt out whatever word that sould make them seem intelligent. They fail to realize that good argumentation is not about using these complex language since it won't matter if people cannot understand you.
I share your observation, Abegail. I also noticed how people who often use big words are those who claim to be progressive. It is frustrating because if they truly want people to understand their cause, they would adjust the way they communicate their arguments and make it easy for their target audiences to understand. However, some people would rather sound intelligent instead of actually doing their best to convince other people.
Especially regarding politics, people are quick to result to ad hominem. I understand that having political discussions on the internet has its constraints. Though, I still believe that there are ways that we can be more civil. I also feel like, because of the anonymity that social media provides, people forget that there is an actual person behind a username. Ad hominem also requires much less critical thinking. If a person's logic is being questioned, they can just call the other person names or insult them. While it does not add anything to the discussion, I feel like it does make people feel better about themselves.
False dichotomies also often arise. Again, in political comments, if a person does not support one party, they must ultimately be a supporter of the other team. It is as if you can only be red or yellow, when in fact, you can be a critic of both. Some may not even support either party. Hasty generalizations are also common, in the same sense, if a person supports one party, people automatically make assumptions based on one statement they made. Usually, these three go hand in hand. Say, a person critics one political figure. People are quick to assume that they support the oppositions. Because of this, they resort to ad hominem.
False dichotomies also often arise. Again, in political comments, if a person does not support one party, they must ultimately be a supporter of the other team. It is as if you can only be red or yellow, when in fact, you can be a critic of both. Some may not even support either party. Hasty generalizations are also common, in the same sense, if a person supports one party, people automatically make assumptions based on one statement they made. Usually, these three go hand in hand. Say, a person critics one political figure. People are quick to assume that they support the oppositions. Because of this, they resort to ad hominem.
This is sadly true, Paula. People are committing fallacy over fallacy, building lies over lies. I think one major factor of this as well, is it's the same tactic used by the people they idolized. For instance, the way Duterte demoralized women in power and women in leadership by reducing them to their gender and red-tagging them makes it okay for his follower to do the same. Just like how they crushed the dignity of Sen. De Lima and painted Ressa as the enemy of the state.
Aside from Ad Hominem which was mentioned in this discussion thread, another common fallacy that I observed to be persistent in the comment section of news articles is Red Herring. Whenever there would be recurring news about the serious impact of the Marcos administration on the economy's state, apologists would tend to bring up irrelevant arguments unrelated to the issue.
For instance, during the election period when activists were campaigning against Marcos because of his historical affiliation with Ferdinand Marcos, a mass murderer and a violator of human rights, apologists would comment remarks about the Hacienda Luisita Massacre and direct the blame on Leni Robredo. In recent news, this is also prevalent in the comment section of Marcos' SONA speech. Whenever someone points out that there was no specific mention of plans to resolve human rights violations such as red-tagging, apologists tend to mention that Marcos-Duterte supports the IP Community. This is an obvious form of cover-up and misdirection to swerve from having to answer Marcos Jr's political obligations and plans.
For instance, during the election period when activists were campaigning against Marcos because of his historical affiliation with Ferdinand Marcos, a mass murderer and a violator of human rights, apologists would comment remarks about the Hacienda Luisita Massacre and direct the blame on Leni Robredo. In recent news, this is also prevalent in the comment section of Marcos' SONA speech. Whenever someone points out that there was no specific mention of plans to resolve human rights violations such as red-tagging, apologists tend to mention that Marcos-Duterte supports the IP Community. This is an obvious form of cover-up and misdirection to swerve from having to answer Marcos Jr's political obligations and plans.
Well said, AJ. It is both upsetting and appalling how the trolls and other Marcos supporters can always have the confident to comment an answer that is very unrelated to the topic at hand. However, you can notice their idol also uses the same strategy. The President himself had a lot of instances of missing the point (whether unintentionally or intentionally) when answering questions (which were very rare) in the past campaign period.
Without a doubt, Ad Hominem is the easiest fallacy to commit; hence, its prevalence in social media is inevitable. Vince and AJ shared some interesting points about how Ad Hominem has become somehow a “norm” in our culture. I also believe that our idea of humor is somewhat toxic. It is so common for comedians to cross a line when they use a person’s physical flaws to deliver a joke, but we ignore it because we’ve got accustomed to this toxic culture, and we downplay the insult as a “joke lang naman.” We don’t want to be labeled “sensitive” and “killjoy” — which is another form of attacks that fall under Ad Hominem.
In addition to Ad Hominem, I think another less noticed fallacy is the tendency of Filipinos to jump on the bandwagon. Last year, there was a debate over the efficiency of Ivermectin to cure COVID. Although there are already experts who oppose this, the medicine’s popularity caused some people to believe that Ivermectin is a cure despite the lack of scientific evidence.
In addition to Ad Hominem, I think another less noticed fallacy is the tendency of Filipinos to jump on the bandwagon. Last year, there was a debate over the efficiency of Ivermectin to cure COVID. Although there are already experts who oppose this, the medicine’s popularity caused some people to believe that Ivermectin is a cure despite the lack of scientific evidence.
I do agree with you on your view of our humor, Ely. I also think that our humor can be toxic and that we tend to use jokes as an escape from backlash (and also responsibility). I also do agree that people tend to just believe what is current and famous, hence jumping onto the bandwagon. Aside from Ivermectin, I noticed this also with politics specifically when some Facebook friends just share posts about a candidate's long list of accomplishments that are not even true. They even use such a post as proof because it has so many engagements.
I am not going to lie, I have had some laughs on some Ad Hominem comments in the comments sections. I agree with you that this type of humor is so deeply ingrained into our culture that sometimes we find it difficult to police ourselves. I realize that I need to heavily work on unlearning this type of humor because it does not in any way contribute to productive discussions. I hope that this culture of ours also changes someday.
I agree with you, Ely. In our culture of "pakikisama", it is easy to slip in offensive humor and excuse people's behavior because we do not want to be "panira" or feel excluded from the group. I also agree with the tendency to bandwagon, which can be harmful on issues such as healthcare where wrong information can spread like wildfire and cause mass hysteria, like what happened with the Dengvaxia issue.
Thanks for this insightful statement, Ely! The "joke lang naman" culture is prevalent in the Philippine society, and people think that it automatically negates offensive/illogical remarks.
The common fallacies commited by netizens on online news articles are Hasty Generalization and Ad Hominen. As I have observed, whether it be on any type of online platform the comments section fail to use logical arguments when sharing their points. Most of the time, if they disagree with a particular topic, let's say a political candidate, they would often use below the belt terms or say unnecessary comments about their appearance. Once they set their mind to something, they do not really care about what others have to say or if what they're saying is not factual. In a way, they just want to elicit a negative response since they know that they cannot win with logic.
As for hasty generalization, I've noticed that many netizens like to give quick assumptions and spread negativity as much as they can. For example, when Covid hit, many have labeled all Chinese even Filo-Chinese who never left the country as the ones to blame for the pandemic. In recent news, this type of behavior is still pretty common whether it be regarding political figures, celebrities or groups of people in society. Unfortunately, this is how people comment even in news related information and we can only try our best not to engage with their nonsensical banters and comments when we see them online.
As for hasty generalization, I've noticed that many netizens like to give quick assumptions and spread negativity as much as they can. For example, when Covid hit, many have labeled all Chinese even Filo-Chinese who never left the country as the ones to blame for the pandemic. In recent news, this type of behavior is still pretty common whether it be regarding political figures, celebrities or groups of people in society. Unfortunately, this is how people comment even in news related information and we can only try our best not to engage with their nonsensical banters and comments when we see them online.
This is sadly true, Ferida :( Even in real life, those who look Chinese would even be discriminated, avoided, or publicly harassed because of the "COVID carrier" misconception. I also agree with what you said about Ad Hominem. A manifestation of this is seen through smart shaming as well, especially when one can't think of a rebuttal or counter argument.
This is all unfortunately true, Ferida. Especially in situations where people feel backed into a corner, a lot of them resort to Ad hominem as a way to deflect attention. Hasty generalizations are also quite rampant, even in a real-life setting. As upsetting as it is to see how Filipinos resort to these fallacies, we can also say that it is ingrained into our culture, as they were already being used in pre-social media days.
Trigger Warning: Rape
Appeal to emotion or pity is actually very commonly used by people online. This is often used when people try to justify the acts committed by perpetrators, or if they want the public to gain sympathy for people who did something wrong. For example, when Vhong Navarro was recently convicted for rape, many people in the comments would express how the decision to send him to jail was unfair because Vhong would not be able to do his job and help his family financially. This is aligned with many other remarks about how we should not be critical towards Duterte because he is already sick and old, or comments about how we should stop calling out Toni Gonzaga for being a Marcos enabler and apologist because she is a human being with feelings who might feel hurt by criticism.
I would argue that this is fallacy is one of the most manipulative types, as it tries to make others feel horrible about doing something that is valid. When encountering such comments, it is important that we still try our best to view issues and situations as objectively as possible instead of letting emotions get the best of us.
Appeal to emotion or pity is actually very commonly used by people online. This is often used when people try to justify the acts committed by perpetrators, or if they want the public to gain sympathy for people who did something wrong. For example, when Vhong Navarro was recently convicted for rape, many people in the comments would express how the decision to send him to jail was unfair because Vhong would not be able to do his job and help his family financially. This is aligned with many other remarks about how we should not be critical towards Duterte because he is already sick and old, or comments about how we should stop calling out Toni Gonzaga for being a Marcos enabler and apologist because she is a human being with feelings who might feel hurt by criticism.
I would argue that this is fallacy is one of the most manipulative types, as it tries to make others feel horrible about doing something that is valid. When encountering such comments, it is important that we still try our best to view issues and situations as objectively as possible instead of letting emotions get the best of us.
Well said, Charlette! I agree that appeal to emotion is extremely manipulative. Even in political statements or congress discussions, this is sometimes used by people in authority to distract the public from criticizing or questioning their performance. To add to what you said, I remember when PNP chief "Bato" Dela Rosa cried at Senate probe when Sen. Zubiri simply asked what steps he was planning to take in response to cops who were allegedly involved in illegal drugs themselves. Bato cried and said "ako'y hirap na hirap na".
Interesting issue you have opened, Lette. It is still a wonder how they were able to use appeal to pity for Navarro rather than the wronged person. Moreover, it was already a conviction where their opinion would not really matter (unless they appeal for Navarro themselves). I totally agree that this fallacy is one of the most manipulative; it can make the oppressor oppressed - one who is on a pedestal (male, rich, connected) at that.
Aside from Hasty Generalization and Ad Hominem, some fallacies that I also believe to be common on online comment sections are 1) False Dilemma/False Dichotomy and 2) Slippery Slope.
When it comes to political news, False Dilemma/False Dichotomy has been quite present especially when one tries to criticize the current administration's projects or plans. You either have to completely support or agree with it or else BBM supporters and conservatives will tell you that you're "protesting against the government" or that you're "dilawan" even though it doesn't always have to be choosing between two extreme sides.
I have also noticed that Slippery Slope arguments are rampant in controversial or progressive policies such as the current discussions on SOGIE anti-discrimination bill. Statements like "approving the bill will lead to even more 'special treatment' for the LGBT community and for other 'identities' to demand the same treatment", or "establishing all-gender restrooms will cause more sexual harassment cases" are all fallacies that imply how one small action will lead to a chain of negative or extremely harmful events.
When it comes to political news, False Dilemma/False Dichotomy has been quite present especially when one tries to criticize the current administration's projects or plans. You either have to completely support or agree with it or else BBM supporters and conservatives will tell you that you're "protesting against the government" or that you're "dilawan" even though it doesn't always have to be choosing between two extreme sides.
I have also noticed that Slippery Slope arguments are rampant in controversial or progressive policies such as the current discussions on SOGIE anti-discrimination bill. Statements like "approving the bill will lead to even more 'special treatment' for the LGBT community and for other 'identities' to demand the same treatment", or "establishing all-gender restrooms will cause more sexual harassment cases" are all fallacies that imply how one small action will lead to a chain of negative or extremely harmful events.
Come to think of it, these are also very common in comments section. People like to use the either or especially in political matters. Slippery slope, unfortunately, is also commonly committed at the expense of the LGBT community. I think we have all heard of the comment, "Pag pinagbigyan mo kasi, magde-demand at magde-demand pa lalo. 'Di na titigil 'yan."
Ad Hominem and Hasty Generalizations are quite common when browsing the comment section. This is quite apparent, especially when the other party feels threatened or has no other arguments to give. However, two other fallacies a lot of people commit is 1) the fallacy of repeated assertion and 2) the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance.
The fallacy of repeated assertion can be seen when people repeat their point over and over again, thinking that its repetition in and of itself, covers for proof that they fail to provide. During the height of the elections, people would tend to frequently repeat their point without actually moving the conversation forward.
Furthermore, a lot of Filipinos use the appeal to ignorance fallacy as a way for them to shut down an opponent's argument, simply because "they have not heard of it" equating it to not be true.
The fallacy of repeated assertion can be seen when people repeat their point over and over again, thinking that its repetition in and of itself, covers for proof that they fail to provide. During the height of the elections, people would tend to frequently repeat their point without actually moving the conversation forward.
Furthermore, a lot of Filipinos use the appeal to ignorance fallacy as a way for them to shut down an opponent's argument, simply because "they have not heard of it" equating it to not be true.
Appeal to authority is commonly seen in various comment sections of news articles online. Fanatics of public officials usually comment that they believe this certain politician is doing a great job or has plans to address issues because the politician said so, even though we are yet to see actual progress.
This mindset is actually dangerous because public officials should be called out for inactivity, incompetence, and neglect. They are expected to rightfully serve the people as the budget they handle mostly come from the public's taxes, therefore, we have the right to voice out our concerns when we see any wrongdoing.
This mindset is actually dangerous because public officials should be called out for inactivity, incompetence, and neglect. They are expected to rightfully serve the people as the budget they handle mostly come from the public's taxes, therefore, we have the right to voice out our concerns when we see any wrongdoing.
You're right, Mikay. It is quite common in the Philippines for the people to idolize politicians despite their incompetence. I think it's one of the many reasons we still have trash politicians in position right now.
Ad hominen and ad populum (bandwagonism, specifically) definitely top the list. Especially among Filipinos, these were already common even before the internet age. Ad hominen only worsened since people have the veil of anonymity to protect them as well as the absence of a way to hold them accountable. For some reason, people like to attack the person themself (body shame, slut shame, smart shame, all kinds of shame esp. those that have to do with physical features) rather than their argument. Hopping on to the bandwagon or popular opinion is also rampant, in part due to Filipino collectivism.
Ad hominem really is prevalent these days. Ad populum is something that I used to do as well I think, mainly because I struggle to form my own opinions and just agree with whoever I think shares the same thoughts as me.
Ad Hominem is a pretty common fallacy that you can observe when you read articles online. People usually go directly to the messenger and forget the context of the argument entirely, thinking that they will "win" the argument through that. It is extremely damaging because it ruins a safe space for healthy discussions or arguments, and instead creates fear and disinterest when engaging in discussions online.