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.

Everyone loves ad hominem, it’s fucking fun to use. Doesn’t make it a valid argument.

These argument approaches sometimes work, for sure. But if the public consensus is anything to go by, there’s limited fucking reach for them. Sure they’ll work socially, but no institution is going to amplify those messages, and it fails whenever you encounter someone who knows to be rightly skeptical of ad hominem arguments.

Unless you can demonstrate how his work is flawed I don’t find it persuasive.

He can believe all these things and still have a correct methodology with accurate data.

Yes it’s an ad hominem. You’re saying he’s an untrustworthy source without examining any of his arguments, that the definition of ad hominem. And it’s lazy.

Your example is a non sequitur, not ad hominem.

You don’t have to prove a negative, just demonstrate that the evidence for the affirmative is insufficient. But that means reading so it’s hard I guess.

Did you address the content of the argument, or did you say the source is untrustworthy? The latter is ad hominem and it’s fallacious. Talk about why he’s wrong. People can be circumstantially correct even if they’re creeps. These arguments are only persuasive to people who either don’t know the weaknesses of them or are already on your team. Besides, there are other sources on China besides Zenz. If all you know how to do is tell me Zenz is bad you’re going to fall on your face in every other scenario. Which is exactly what is see happen in the wild.

See I don’t find any of those arguments persuasive, and if someone is genuinely looking for rigorous critique they shouldn’t either.

The existence or non-existence of a refugee crisis is probably the strongest argument, but is easily challenged. “China’s control is just that powerful”, “The genocide is through authoritarian control and only limited state violence. So refugees aren’t necessarily present.”

As for the Muslim countries claim, there’s a lot of weird assumptions there. Primarily that state actors would give a shit about human rights abuses when it goes against their national interests to complain.

And finally, Zenz is a creep. Yeah some folks will find this persuasive, but it’s still a bad argument. A fallacy is a fallacy, if you’re talking to someone who cares about the weight of evidence they (and I) won’t give a shit about who he is unless you can demonstrate how his others beliefs affect how he interprets his research.