Just to add: I know his methodology is flawed and the data is poor. Because I read his fucking papers. That is what allows me to talk intelligently about it, and then go on to explain that he is likely motivated by ideological reasons. This is far more effective.

See that’s a real argument though.

“The methodology is flawed in these ways which invalidate the conclusions.”

Not ad hominem.

Ad hominem on the other hand: It’s persuasive some of the time, but it leaves you with nothing if the source is anyone but Zenz. Also it’s still fallacious. I mean, I find Zenz fucking abhorrent and am highly confident that his wacko religious views motivate his work, but if I tried to argue that in any kind of intellectually serious sphere I’d be laughed out of the room, and rightly so.

Just read the fucking papers. They’re not complicated, find the evidence backing up the claims they’re making and figure out how it poorly supports the claims made. Same thing with the organ harvesting stuff. When you actually read the original stuff you can readily take apart the arguments being used there.

You’re right because most of the time these propagandists rely on their audience not doing the investigation. Personally, I find your prescribed method the most persuasive. I’ll use this example link here.

What I admire about this specific example of your method is that it simultaneously establishes one’s credibility (it makes people want to listen to you, want to come to your side) by demonstrating intellectual rigour and also puts the claimant on the defensive by asking them to justify every claim, big or small. I included the whole comment chain to show the claim being defeated (then deleted) and the comments of the lurkers praising it. This is the exact phenomenon we want to see replicated everywhere on whatever internet forum.

Having said that though, I think we should understand that it’s not about what any individual here finds persuasive. If there’s a method people find effective in their circles, I say go ahead.