It's something I'm beginning to call the 'omniscient imagination fallacy'. It occurs when people assume that 'if it occurs to my imagination, it must be true', and is a lot more common than we realize, particularly when it comes to what we imagine about other people's motives. Which, in a way, isn't a surprise, as it's implicit in Bulverism, which is also quite common.
Exactly right (that if you can't argue against a position without considering its source, you likely don't have an argument in the first place), but note that this has been roundly ignored in public discourse for years. It had gotten so common by the 1940's that C. S. Lewis felt compelled to make up a name for it - he called it Bulverism. Others have come up with their own monikers for it (Anthony Flew referred to it as the "Subject/Motive Shift", and it is more generically known as the genetic fallacy, or a motivational ad hominem). The technique is basically, don't bother trying to prove an opponent is wrong, just assume they're wrong, and "explain" what motivates them to say what they do. It also involves what I am beginning to call the 'omniscient imagination' fallacy, as there never is given any real evidence for the proffered motive, it is just assumed that if I can imagine that motivation, it *must* be true.
This idea from a Clinton who could not handle having two "high-tech" phones?
In the midst of all the back-and-forth on the particular brou-ha-ha, this is the thing that's been deciding for me. By her own admission, she prioritized her own convenience over the law and the security of the nation. That's not the kind of person I want in control of the 'football'.
Thanks for a demonstration that what's 'obvious' isn't always true. I've never seen "Brewster's Millions", and independently came up with the "NOTA reboots the election" notion years ago. Perhaps disgust with politicians and political tactics is spread wide enough that the notion springs up in multiple people's heads?
I've been maintaining this for a *long* time. My latest twist: a candidate who is in a sufficient number of races which go to None of the Above, is permanently disbarred from running for office.
The advantage of "NOTA winning reboots the race" is that it discourages negative campaigning. Negative campaigning currently works because, if voters believe it, they don't have much choice but to drop out of voting, or voting for the candidate using the negative campaign. Making NOTA a viable vote means that a candidate using negative campaigning may well be pushing votes to NOTA (which, with the new twist, may permanently sideline the candidate).
Given how commercialized and tied up in monopolies the traditional games are, isn't trying to be better than the tradional games setting the bar pretty low?
You scoundrel! Several hours and hundreds of tabs from now, thousands of Slashdot readers are going to look up from their computers, wondering "Where did all that time go?".
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android