Browse the comments section of recent news articles online. What are some of the most common fallacies committed?
Hasty generalization can usually be found in comments under political posts. People have the tendency to jump into conclusions upon merely evaluating a person's association/affiliation with certain groups. Usually, the comments come with an accusation or condemnation of the person or group/s, separating it from the actual context of the issue.
The Ad Hominem fallacy is also very much prevalent. From my observation, fake/troll accounts are more likely to employ this particular fallacy because they do not fear reprimand.
I've also noted the use of the fallacy of appeal to ignorance wherein people would participate in denialism to debunk an otherwise valid claim.
The Ad Hominem fallacy is also very much prevalent. From my observation, fake/troll accounts are more likely to employ this particular fallacy because they do not fear reprimand.
I've also noted the use of the fallacy of appeal to ignorance wherein people would participate in denialism to debunk an otherwise valid claim.
Great observation, Jaime! It is true that anonymity plays a role on how trolls act in social media. This is especially disheartening given how some people exert effort to research factual evidences only to receive personal attacks from a random stranger online.
I agree with your point on anonymity, Chris! I noticed that it was troll accounts who flocked comment sections to attack other commenters and spread fake news. I hope online platforms are able to effectively address this growing concern as soon as possible, and I look forward to informational campaigns that educate users on how to distinguish fake/troll accounts as unreliable sources of information.
I agree with you, Toph. As a member of a socio-civic organization, I personally experienced attacks from people who disagree with the stand of our organization. Most of these are accounts that are anonymous which make them confident to attack other people. Thus, they do not fear reprimand from their fallacious actions.
I agree! I think the moral of the passage would really be to not jump into conclusions and instead understand the arguments on a deeper level, and then reflect on what you have to say.
Comment sections of most political news articles are littered with strawman arguments.
Articles pointing out flaws in the current and past administrations are often countered by supporters and trolls by diverting the issue, specifically by pointing out mistakes of the opposition. It is a common fallacy because rather than addressing the issue, someone's position is misdirected and overexaggerated for the benefit of the other argument. For example, when a critic calls for accountability on the atrocities of Martial Law, a troll would respond by stating how the critic is a fanatic of the opposition and that they have no problems with killings made under said opposition's term. This would then transition to ad hominem and several arguments appealing to ignorance.
Articles pointing out flaws in the current and past administrations are often countered by supporters and trolls by diverting the issue, specifically by pointing out mistakes of the opposition. It is a common fallacy because rather than addressing the issue, someone's position is misdirected and overexaggerated for the benefit of the other argument. For example, when a critic calls for accountability on the atrocities of Martial Law, a troll would respond by stating how the critic is a fanatic of the opposition and that they have no problems with killings made under said opposition's term. This would then transition to ad hominem and several arguments appealing to ignorance.
I agree with the points you raised, Jared. I noticed that arguments are exaggerated to the point where they become irrelevant and misleading. This does not promote a culture of critical thinkers who can then engage in healthy discourse. Instead, attacks are thrown without fully addressing the difference in opinion.
It is truly a concerning issue Jared, one that has become almost cyclical in every political news. Someone always comes in "defense" as if personally slighted, and once all else fails they descend to vicious ad hominem attacks.
This is a good point, Jared! People usually minimize or overexaggerate an argument to attack it.
I very much agree with what you said Jared! I find it hard to go through the comments section of political posts because of the lack of sound arguments that are backed up by solid evidence.
The recent news articles I browsed were mostly political, and I noticed the forced dichotomy between political parties in the comments section. When one challenges leadership or suggests an alternative solution, they are automatically labeled to be a member of the opposing political team in a degrading manner. The degradation is often accompanied by personal attacks (ad hominem) and irrelevant arguments. I also noticed the misuse of the term "terrorist", whereas users (often anonymous) freely label those who question political decisions as terrorists. Hence, the fallacies committed hinder critical thinking and a space for healthy and insightful discourse on online forums.
This is true from my experience as well Karmela! A lot of news comments are quick quips of clearly stereotyped labels. It is saddening how quick people are to judge instead of participating in healthy discourse.
Very true, Reena. It is alarming that people misuse the word "terrorist." Sometimes, UP students are labeled terrorists, too—a clear example of transfer.
I could not agree more, Karmela. These types of comments dominate some of the most controversial socio-political issues in our country today.
This is a sad reality that is prevalent in our country right now. Usually, members of National Democratic Mass Organizations experience what you mentioned, Reena. Sadly, if you criticize the government, it is inevitable to receive personal attacks and be labeled as a "terrorist".
I have also observed the same thing, Karmela. False dichotomy is actually another fallacy that is often committed by Filipinos online. Some individuals tend to oversimplify issues as an either-or choice between two mutually exclusive options. Similar to what you've mentioned, individuals who criticize BBM are automatically labeled as Dilawan. This, therefore, results in political polarization rather than being able to address the issue at hand and have a healthy discourse with one another.
Upon browsing news about the pandemic and vaccines, I was able to determine some common prevailing fallacies in the comments, such as ad hominem and appeal to ignorance.
Ad hominem is depicted by the attack on the personal lives of medical professionals, vaccine advocates, and even vaccine manufacturing companies. Often, notions about how they only seek to earn money are thrown around, and even some points on their looks are said instead of logical arguments on the issue being discussed.
Appeal to ignorance can be observed when comments like the COVID-19 virus is not real and is actually only the flu is propagated. Just because it cannot be physically seen or it exhibits flu-like symptoms, people are quick to dismiss what has clearly been well-proven.
Ad hominem is depicted by the attack on the personal lives of medical professionals, vaccine advocates, and even vaccine manufacturing companies. Often, notions about how they only seek to earn money are thrown around, and even some points on their looks are said instead of logical arguments on the issue being discussed.
Appeal to ignorance can be observed when comments like the COVID-19 virus is not real and is actually only the flu is propagated. Just because it cannot be physically seen or it exhibits flu-like symptoms, people are quick to dismiss what has clearly been well-proven.
Yes, Majet, there are still people who do not believe in that COVID is indeed not a normal virus and is very deadly (just because their families did not experience life-threatening conditions caused by the virus does not mean they have to invalidate others' experiences that easily).
Sadly, some people will not believe something exists, even if proven, unless they see or experience it themselves.
Great points, Majet! I agree with what you have said about medical professionals being attacked by their looks (ad hominem). This was the same with my experience when I encountered a comment by a nurse suggesting that vaccines would help to lessen COVID-19 cases. This particular man commented, "Siguro nagpainjection ka na no? mukha ka na kasing alien." From here, instead of commenting on the subject matter, the vaccines in this context, the nurse was attacked by personal appearance.
We often see insults and degrading remarks in comment sections. "Sana pina-billboard mo," "Edi ikaw na lang maging presidente," are some of the common phrases we can see during the election season (well sadly, up 'till now, though). This shows that avoiding issues (e.g., evasion, ad hominem) plague the comment section. Instead of addressing the main notion, people sometimes deviate from it—creating conclusions that have no bearing.
I agree that avoiding issues is one of the most committed fallacies in the comment section.
You're right, Patrick! Although some of these comments are comical to use in a different context, they are toxic when discussing important matters like news and political issues. They do stir the discussion away from the important things that need people's attention.
I also see those types of comments, I think they may also be considered as forms of the Appeal to Humor fallacy?
I also frequently encounter such comments that may seem like taking things on a comical note, but it also decreases the quality of discussions. So probably aside from avoiding the issue, it may also fall under the fallacy of appeal to humor, as it can be used as a joke to take things lightly or mock the arguments.
I agree with you, Patrick! Aside from ad hominem, the fallacy of avoiding issues is also prevalent on social media. With this, constructive conversations rarely happen in the comment sections, as netizens often raise irrelevant statements to avoid dealing with the main subject.
I see those comments too! Although sometimes, I get confused about whether they are just joking or intentionally avoiding the issue. It's hard to read people on the internet.
I notice this too, Pat! There were people who comment irrelevant remarks. I guess, deep down, these people are aware that they are on the wrong side, but to save face, they avoid the issues instead.
The most common fallacies committed by most of the comments on recent news articles online were avoiding issues and irrelevant arguments. I could still see comments about the promised 10 thousand pesos of Cayetano, which is another issue and has no connection to the news article. Another observation is that they stated examples of a similar situation but did not address the point of the news article.
I agree with you, Sai. Nowadays, it is so difficult to identify if the comments are intended to be a joke. Or they are simply caused by poor understanding and shallow comprehension of the issue being reported or discussed.
In relation to the point you raised that these comments may be intended as a joke sometimes, it may seem like an appeal to humor too. I also agree, however, that it is mainly commented to avoid the issue presented since it literally does not relate to the issue at hand.
I agree with you on this, Sai. A lot of people would resort to the fallacy of avoiding the issue and it further shows that their arguments have unclear or vague points. One example of this is how some supporters of the current administration would 'attempt' to explain the price hike in a way that has no direct connection to the issue itself. Some older netizens would even cite some of their and their ancestors' "first-hand" experiences during the Martial Law which clearly did not address the point of the issue/news article.
I agree with you on this, Sai. What's worse is they use unverified information or even memes in addressing the point of news articles. This is very prevalent especially on Facebook.
Recently, GMA News published an article about President Marcos Jr.'s dream of lowering the price of rice to 20 Pesos per kilo before Christmas day. One comment claimed that the price hike is uncontrollable by the president and that it is not in his hands to lower the price because the problem is global in scale. After all, she is also experiencing the issue in Japan. This is an example of a hasty generalization. The user jumps to a conclusion even if her referent criterion is not representative of the whole population. Another evident fallacy is the use of false analogy. Many users blame the opposition for not supporting the president even if the administration controls both the senate and house of representatives. Others claim that as long as there is unity or continued support of the majority who voted for the president, the price of rice will go down eventually.
I agree, Rod! Fallacies of hasty generalization and false analogy are very rampant in the comments section. It even often comes from "trolls" who have a "script" they must follow (or copy and paste in numerous posts).
I agree Rodolfo. Although, I have to admit that I find myself in the situation of "jumping into conclusions". Do you have tips to avoid this?
This is a good example, Rod. I would also like to add to your insight about hasty generalization regarding the news of price hikes. I find it absurd how many posts are going viral on Facebook where netizens, apparently, supporters of the current administration, would throw out remarks saying that those who complain about the value of PHP 1,000 today are those who are not good in budgeting and "maluho". Worse, they would even label these people as "nag-iinarte". It's sad that these apologists would go to that extent of hasty generalization, and in a way, Ad Hominem too just to defend these lawmakers for FREE.
Hasty generalizations are dangerous and misleading. Some people I know are often misguided by these generalizations, similar to what you have cited. Then, they will use that same argument in other posts, which is alarming and will lead to more misled people.
In most news issues, common fallacies committed by people when reacting to the article is Ad Hominem (or Baiting an Opponent) and Ignoring the Issue.
In a political news post of activists protesting in celebration of Andres Bonifacio’s birthday, there were a lot of comments baiting the opponents, often labelling these militant groups as “salot” or “bobo” and going to the extent of implying death threats. These are clear examples of ad hominem (or baiting the opponent) since these are personal attacks and criticisms that do not have a direct correlation with the issue at hand.
The fallacy of Ignoring the Issue could also be seen in comments sections where discussions are taking place, but even though Person A was able to refute the arguments of Person B logically, Person B did not acknowledge this and moved forward in defending their own stance.
In a political news post of activists protesting in celebration of Andres Bonifacio’s birthday, there were a lot of comments baiting the opponents, often labelling these militant groups as “salot” or “bobo” and going to the extent of implying death threats. These are clear examples of ad hominem (or baiting the opponent) since these are personal attacks and criticisms that do not have a direct correlation with the issue at hand.
The fallacy of Ignoring the Issue could also be seen in comments sections where discussions are taking place, but even though Person A was able to refute the arguments of Person B logically, Person B did not acknowledge this and moved forward in defending their own stance.
I guess there is a prevalence of ad hominem, especially in news related to politics. A lot of comments would target their opponents and in turn, ignore the issue and move forward in arguing their stance.
I agree, Alex! I was also able to observe that many individuals commit the fallacy of ignoring the issue as I was reading the comments in recent news articles. Most of the time, those who can no longer provide logical reasoning to support their stances tend to steer away from the point being discussed and brings up a completely unrelated and irrelevant argument.
I usually observe that many people commit ad hominem fallacies on social media. For instance, Philstar posted an article about a study that shows that Metro Manila has one of the worst public transportation systems in the world. Then a netizen attacked Philstar’s credibility, claiming that the publication company always reports on news that damages the country’s reputation, instead of tackling the public transport issue.
If not the source of news articles, I have noticed other people fallaciously attack other commenters. An example would be someone who discredited another person’s reaction against a news story about Sen. Dela Rosa's statement on mandatory ROTC by replying with personal attacks. Like this particular comment, many people often tend to make irrelevant arguments and engage in circular reasoning online which are also examples of fallacies.
That's right Jai! I also think that the prevalence of ad hominem attacks is honestly already tiring. The attempts to combat them are exhaustive given that there is no practical, rational response to these attacks to attempt to convince them to change their minds. The opposition's propaganda movement should start combatting this issue on a much bigger scale.
I noticed that once a strong and accurate comment or argument has been made, people start making fun of the original poster/author instead of recognizing the issue. Honestly, it's tiring.
I agree with you, Jai. Aside from attacking the person being discussed in the news articles, some people online resort to attacking people who oppose their arguments, which does not contribute to healthy discussions at all.
Similar to the answers of my classmates, two of the most common fallacies I encounter across online news articles are Ad Hominem and False Analogy. I read an article published by the Philippine Star regarding former senator Bam Aquino's questioning of the timing of the Maharlika Fund. I already expected that the news itself would be bombarded with comments from the troll community, and I was not wrong at all. Although most of them used the same phrases and lines of thought as if there was already a template, some of the most used were "ganyan talaga pag mga talunan at wala nang career as pulitika", and "pag kayo ang nasa pwesto laging tama, pag kalaban na,maling timing?". Certainly, these two phrases are prime examples of Ad Hominem and False Analogy respectively. Unfortunately, most trolls in the comment section would also personally attack other netizens who aired their sentiments opposing the Maharlika Fund.
The screenshot above is a portion of the comment section on a news article about Kabataan Party-list Rep. Raoul Manuel's call on Filipino youth to reject the House Bill (HB) 6486, or the “National Citizens Service Training (NCST) Program Act.
Looking at the screenshot, some people are against the call of Rep. Manuel. However, most of the arguments contain fallacies. From what I observed, most of them used Ad Hominem and Hasty Generalization. Aside from the personal attacks to Rep. Manuel, most of these people generalize that those who criticize the government like Rep. Manuel are members of a terrorist group.
Rep. Manuel has been the subject of ad hominem attacks even before he was elected to Congress. It has only gotten worse now with attacks circulating online regarding his sexuality and that he has sexually harassed an individual. These are practically harmful to his reputation given how many people attempt to corroborate the fictional story and pose it as truth when it is clearly not.
These comments make my blood boil. It is so common for netizens online to make hasty generalizations and post irrelevant arguments online. Honestly, how does criticizing the government or holding rallies automatically equate to terrorism? Also, joining rallies is a choice – mandatory ROTC is not.
Ad Hominem is a very common example especially when news articles feature an opposition personality. The personal attacks do not have any inherent reason to be there and it just attacks the character. Its also funny especially when arguing online and when you present them with facts, they judge you and your character instead which is also a common indication that they have lost and will not consume anything you say to convince them otherwise.
That's true, Julian. Ad hominem is all over social media. I agree with what you said—this type of fallacy is common when news articles feature an opposing personality. This, then, reminds me of the recent election season. Every time a news page features a specific candidate, netizens would comment ad hominem attacks on that person, especially when they do not support the candidate featured.
That is true, Juls! I think public access to people's social media profiles contribute a lot when committing ad hominem in comment sections. In my observation, some people manage to post the profile or photo of their "perceived enemy" to mock the person's appearance or credibility. This, instead, creates antagonism between two parties.
With the comments we see in news agency posts daily, we can see most of these fallacies present in different ways, but usually, these fallacies used may vary depending on the news posted.
For example, the attached image below was a screen capture of the comment section in INQUIRER.net's Facebook post on ACT Teachers Partylist Rep. France Castro's warning to remain vigilant despite the announcement of pulling out the SSS and GSIS from the originally proposed source of funding for the Maharlika Investment Fund.
Most comments included fallacies in reasoning, particularly using irrelevant arguments, avoiding the issue, and ad hominem. Most comments included irrelevant arguments and ad hominem that targets the speaker, such as red-tagging Rep. Castro and accusing her instead of presenting necessary arguments related to her stance on the Maharlika Investment Fund. The red-tagging comments are in no way pertinent to the issue and also did not present anything as a basis or proof of what they are arguing against. Aside from these comments, you can see a comment referencing to Atty. Robredo and that she should offer a better idea. However, we can see that their argument is completely unrelated to the discussion regarding Maharlika Investment Fund since Atty. Robredo is not directly involved in the said issue and she is not part of the legislation.
I ALWAYS encounter those arguments. Even with normal conversations, people often use the "NPA ka kasi," "puro reklamo," or "bakit hindi na lang sumunod."
I often saw hasty generalizations, especially for articles that feature celebrity gossip. It's also part of the clickbait pandemic we've had every since Youtubers rose to fame (such as those that make bank on tabloid news). People are quick to make a whole paragraph based on a one-sentence description of the event with an out-of-context photo.
I agree with you, Elaine. Indeed, we should be responsible commenters by first understanding the complete context and reading/viewing the entire content before commenting. This remains true in other online or offline situations for us to avoid committing fallacies as well.
That's indeed an observable occurrence nowadays, Elaine. Some netizens do not even open the whole news article posted on social media. They only rely on its headline and then make comments containing hasty generalizations.
Atty. Robredo was a victim of hasty generalizations, especially during the election period. People kept making memes and fake news about something totally out of context.
The recent news article that I encountered was about the increase in food prices due to inflation. Upon browsing the comment section, the most common fallacy I read was ignoring the issue or red herring. Most people commented that inflation is all about “budgeting.” Also, some comments were “maarte lang kasi mga Pinoy” and “nasa pagtitipid lang yan." From here, instead of focusing on the root causes of inflation, the netizens changed the original subject so that the main topic would not be discussed. Hence, irrelevant conclusions were brought by them.
That’s true, Pauline. It is also difficult to find productive discussions on social media—especially on Facebook from my observations—since many people tend to ignore the issue and make irrelevant comments about important news and topics.
Yes, that's right! I even saw a comment encouraging "pagtitiis," as if people do not need to eat for sustenance!
As I browse recent news articles online, the most common fallacy I found in the comments section was hasty generalization. For instance, a news article by ABS-CBN News stated that government employees under the executive branch received 20,000 pesos cash as a recognition incentive this year from the Office of the President. Many people in the comments section said that these employees are privileged. Specifically, netizens posted "sarap buhay" in the comments. Their claim falls under the hasty generalization fallacy because, from the mere fact that government employees received such an incentive, many people already concluded that these employees have comfortable lives.
I agree with you, Paula. Netizens often make hasty generalizations when reading news articles. Actually, I think that most netizens only look at the title of news articles and already set in their mind that they know the entire story. I do not think that receiving incentives equate to comfortable lives – but from the "sarap buhay" comments, we can see that there are netizens who make hasty generalizations.
Ad hominem is the most common fallacy committed online. However, a lot has been circulating lately aside from that. I've seen a lot of comments appealing to ignorance or diverting the issue into an entirely unrelated topic.
I'm not sure if most are the work of trolls, but apparently, some Filipinos do not really get what the article is about. Some argue about "not having the right evidence" or that the evidence presented is fake and manipulated in favor of a particular political party. Some completely ignore the issue and talk about another topic to avoid healthy discussions.
I'm not sure if most are the work of trolls, but apparently, some Filipinos do not really get what the article is about. Some argue about "not having the right evidence" or that the evidence presented is fake and manipulated in favor of a particular political party. Some completely ignore the issue and talk about another topic to avoid healthy discussions.
You are right, Shek. I mostly encounter ad hominem and appeal to ignorance in online political discussions. People hiding behind their keyboards turn into an entirely different person when confronted and cornered with facts and figures. Hence, they resort to name-calling or using other personal attacks.
I agree, Shek! Comments like "move on din pag may time" and "past is past" remain prevalent at present--commonly commented by trolls as you described them. Unfortunately, such comments divert the conversation to their ignorance, which mostly leaves discussion out of hand. The tendency is that it can lead to committing other fallacies like ad hominem instead of approaching a conclusion.
I agree with you, Shek!
I also find it kind of funny that when the news article is not in favor of their candidate, they tend to dismiss the information presented in it, claiming that the website cannot be trusted and such, but when the news favors them, they easily switch as if they did not have a distrust to the website anymore.
I also find it kind of funny that when the news article is not in favor of their candidate, they tend to dismiss the information presented in it, claiming that the website cannot be trusted and such, but when the news favors them, they easily switch as if they did not have a distrust to the website anymore.
On my end, the most common logical fallacy I encounter in browsing online news' comments section is the appeal to ignorance, particularly in our nation's political news nowadays. For example, when BBM and his son went to Singapore solely to watch the F1 races, he was bombarded by criticisms as he was supposed to be present to help affected residents of a recent typhoon that hit country. The former hastily debunked this accusation and concocted an alibi (lie) that he was meeting with businesspeople and other dignitaries that were willing to invest in the Philippines. This, for his supporters, indicates that BBM's claim is true because the accusation was not proven false.
I also observe these, Rachelle. The appeal to ignorance especially in political news is deeply rooted in blind fanaticism, which is disappointing given that other people would provide factual evidences on their claim on how investors lose interest because of BBM's history.
Exactly. I could never really comprehend how certain people can be so easily swayed and misled by false information when facts can simply be researched with just one click.
I agree with you, Rachelle! I can observe this also with the other articles I've read. They appeal to other factors on the basis that your argument has not been proven to be true.
As mentioned by my classmates, the most common fallacies committed in the comment sections of recent news articles online are the Ad Hominem fallacy, the appeal to ignorance, and making hasty generalizations. This is most often seen when Kakampinks and BBMs enter any form of discourse online. Oftentimes, most BBM supporters/trolls attack Kakampinks to deny any claim from them despite the validity of their claims. Even if an individual's criticism toward the country's president is valid, most BBM supporters would refute with "talo lang kasi nanay niyo," "sino yung presidente ngayon?," among many others. In most cases, the moment a BBM supporter finds out that the criticism came from a Kakampink – they choose to ignore the criticism completely and just attacks the individual with irrelevant arguments.
Ad hominem and ad populum are prevalent fallacies committed by Filipinos as seen in the comments section of most news articles online. Upon scrolling on social media, it can be perceived how Filipinos tend to attack the publisher or the entity reported in the news article. This usually happens when the point of information contradicts the post commentor's belief system. We often see comments like "maitim naman kili-kili mo", which is irrelevant to the topic, to unnecessarily establish their superiority. On the other hand, Filipinos enjoy joining the bandwagon without proper fact checking, which is predominantly evident in political posts related to Bongbong Marcos until now. Perhaps, several Filipinos continue to support BBM as numerous comments of inaccurate praises are scattered in comment sections. An example of an ad populum comment is "Leni lutang kaya kay BBM kami", which asserts a claim that is believed by many Filipinos and continues to attract more people to think the same way.
Upon browsing the comments section of recent news articles, I have observed that ad hominem is the most common fallacy committed by Filipinos online. Rather than providing logical and factual justifications for their arguments and stances, many individuals resort to personally attacking and irrelevantly insulting others who hold opposing views on the issue at hand. An example of this would be the news about DTI’s Noche Buena suggestion in which concerned Filipinos received ad hominem remarks such as “wag patay-gutom,” “wag gahaman,” and “kaya ka tumataba,” after expressing how unreasonable the 500-peso budget plan is.
Hello, everyone!
Among the different categories of fallacies, the most prevalent one in the comments section of news article is ad hominem. Perhaps, when we say ad hominem, most of us think of the slanderous comments of those who support BBM, but upon observation, it goes both ways. It's saddening to see that people who claim that they're more educated resort to ad hominem instead of doing their best to provide more arguments because ad hominem offends the person they're conversing with which possibly leads to the person being hurt and reject the valid arguments.
Among the different categories of fallacies, the most prevalent one in the comments section of news article is ad hominem. Perhaps, when we say ad hominem, most of us think of the slanderous comments of those who support BBM, but upon observation, it goes both ways. It's saddening to see that people who claim that they're more educated resort to ad hominem instead of doing their best to provide more arguments because ad hominem offends the person they're conversing with which possibly leads to the person being hurt and reject the valid arguments.
Ad hominem is the most common fallacy I have observed in comment sections of news articles. Especially if the news is about a certain political figure, celebrity, or any public figure for that matter, the netizens commenting on the comment section would usually resort to attacking the person instead of the argument or the news itself. This is more prevalent especially with the emerging "marites" culture in the Philippines. People on the comment sections would bring up issues about the person (topic) even if it has nothing to do with the main argument of the news article.
You're right, Carl! There are also people who would go and stalk the profile of the commenter to find out faults about that person. From there, more personal attacks will emerge. The content or main idea of the article, which is the very reason they commented in the first place, suddenly becomes out of the picture.
I browsed the news, particularly about those that, for me, were the highlights of this month. One was the passing of the SOGIE Anti-Discrimination Bill at the senate level. Looking at the comments, people committed argumentum ad antiquitatem or the appeal to tradition. Since the country is predominantly Catholic, you will read people's comments of Bible verses that condemns those who are part of the LGBT community. They also mentioned that they will regret being part of the community as they will burn in hell. I guess these people did not do their research to know that this bill will not only protect people who are part of the LGBT community, but every single one us Filipinos.
The second and last was about drag queens Marina Summers, Viñas DeLuxe, and Eva Le Queen during Vice Ganda's UnkabogaBall in Cebu. Their getup were memorable because it held powerful messages that sadly not everyone thought of to be the same. Instead, some of these people personaly attacked these queens, committing argumentum ad hominem. Some mentioned that they were only attention-seekers and wanted to be the talk of the town. Some called them crazy, toxic, and demonic, always trying to make the country's past bad, when it is, in fact, horrible.
The second and last was about drag queens Marina Summers, Viñas DeLuxe, and Eva Le Queen during Vice Ganda's UnkabogaBall in Cebu. Their getup were memorable because it held powerful messages that sadly not everyone thought of to be the same. Instead, some of these people personaly attacked these queens, committing argumentum ad hominem. Some mentioned that they were only attention-seekers and wanted to be the talk of the town. Some called them crazy, toxic, and demonic, always trying to make the country's past bad, when it is, in fact, horrible.
In most political news articles, the fallacy of ad hominem appears to be most common among commentors. People usually attack the other commenters, instead of addressing their arguments or position. In this article about rebranding of BBM, it can be observed that people are arguing with using insulting words rather than addressing the argument of the commenter. They use the irrelevant terms "bakla" or "buang" to attack and criticize the other person's point of view.
Genetic fallacy is very common in online news articles especially those that are posted on Facebook. A good example would be when people equate a "Leni-led" project as bad, elitist, and pro-Aquino, while a "Marcos-led" project is good and and act to save the nation. People base the assumptions on the origin of the idea to determine its nature.
Another type of fallacy usually read online is the Straw Man fallacy in which people oversimplify the viewpoint and then attacks the hollow argment. For instance, every time a news article about the passage of the SOGIE Equality Bill, comments on the post would state that the passage of the bill is just an attack on "straight rights" and religion.