“Are We Dating the Same Guy” (AWDTSG) is a series of Facebook pages aimed at creating a safe place to inform other women about potentially dangerous or toxic men while dating locally. It has become the subject of hot debate in recent weeks, as men nationwide have accused these pages of being places of gossip and character assassination.

One of these local pages was recently flagged as a potential “hate group.” Men in the area have contacted Meta because baseless accusations, defamation and false accusations have caused damage to their reputations in the already harsh dating pool.

Last week, a Chicago man filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois District Court against 27 women, one man and Facebook itself for their involvement in AWDTSG, alleging that a negative post about him constituted defamation of character.

The suit, filed by Nikko D’Ambrosio, also alleges the post about him in the group violated anti-doxxing laws and his right to privacy. (“Doxxing” is publicly releasing someone’s personal information without consent. The term comes from “dropping documents.”) The lawsuit also alleges thousands of men have been similarly disparaged, many without their knowledge, and claims posts are not subjected to fact checks.

At what point did the conversations turn from constructive to defamatory? Ad hominem criticism can be defamatory even if the criticism doesn’t specifically name the person. Purpose and context are essential when considering defamation.

What lies to be addressed is our human tendency to fall back on our brain’s inclination to use the non-conscious reflexive systems when making judgments about people. The reflexive brain involuntarily spews mental computations, such as making judgments about people’s race, sex and religious affiliation. Arguing against the person is highly effective because it relies on our left brain’s tendency to want to reduce an individual with a complex set of characteristics and flaws into a more manageable cognitive label. It also taps into our fundamental beliefs about trust and interpersonal connections as social creatures. The human mind would rather deal with one label per person than exert extra effort to compartmentalize conflicting talents and flaws. Because of this, the mind can’t separate the message from the messenger.

Our thoughts and behaviors are now influenced, and many reactions are outside our awareness and control. And yes, we continue stereotypes when judging people, specific groups or politicians.

Your reflexive brain primarily controls your behaviors, especially if you have to make fast decisions or don’t want to exert too much cognitive effort.

There is peril in these reflexive reactions. “Mob mentality,” a mechanism of groupthink, relies heavily upon feelings of prejudice rather than facts, reason and logic. Your emotions get involved, and no amount of evidentiary support to the contrary will sway that reflexive brain’s decision.

Ad hominem is a Latin phrase that means “aimed at the man.” This means attacking the person’s character instead of addressing their claims. What better time than now to evaluate how ad hominem dominates our landscape both socially and politically — it’s an election year.

The 2020 presidential election was one of the most politically charged elections in our nation’s recent history. More than focusing on specific issues, both candidates engaged in ad hominem arguments designed to demean their opponents. Trump claimed that Biden is “against God” and on the “wrong side of history,” and he’s attacked Democrats for viewing America as “a wicked nation that must be punished for its sins.” On the other side of the spectrum, Biden’s campaign and the Democratic convention focused more on attacking Trump and his presidency than on tangible issues.

When your argument strays from the issue at hand to criticisms of the person you’re arguing with, you’re no longer communicating logically. Instead, you’re making an ad hominem attack.

The final presidential debate quickly devolved, with Trump and Biden accusing each other of the same misdeeds: Corruption, mistreatment of immigrants and racism. Trump claimed that Biden received $3.5 million from Russia through Putin, which was a misleading claim. Trump also referenced a “laptop from hell” containing emails that incriminate Joe Biden and his son Hunter in a scheme of shady business dealings with China. Though this conspiracy theory has been debunked, Trump cried corruption, just as he did attacking Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2016.

Biden responded with accusations of his own. “You have not released a single solitary year of your tax return. What are you hiding?” he asked. “The foreign countries are paying you a lot. Russia is paying you a lot.”

Trump’s constant interruptions of Biden were eventually met with the line that became a viral meme: “Oh will you shut up, man. … This is so unpresidential.”

It is important to remember to dissect the arguments presented to us in the election context. To make informed judgments about the candidates, we must identify baseless accusations when we see them and realize that they may not always be based on fact or in reality. Ad hominem arguments come up in politics because we all want to elect politicians that we can trust, but we must think critically about the arguments we hear.

At what point does civil debate become ad hominem tu quoque — personal attack as retribution for a personal attack?

Look at it this way: You and your neighbor are discussing snow removal in front of your houses. You have never wanted a snow blower, but after last winter’s snowpocalypse, you went and purchased the largest gas-guzzling, snow-obliterating monster you could find. Your neighbor quips about how you care little for the environment with a snow blower AND a truck like yours. Your blood twinges and starts to boil. Uh oh. “Oh yeah? I see your garbage cans overflowing every week. Looks like you’re trying to start a new landfill in town personally!” Did it have to go this way? Nope. That was your reflexive brain creating an emotional response at work.

Constructive, measured conversation is the only way to save civil debate in our nation. We have enough platforms in society that make money on our left brain’s desire to conserve energy and fall back on easy judgment. Ad hominem is your simple left brain’s equivalency to sitting on the couch rather than going to the gym. It’s lazy.

Placing simple labels on people colors our view of whatever they are saying, and this tendency also provides a shortcut for attaching a given position or argument. The world is infinitely more complex, layered and contradictory than simple-left-brain categories allow, but most people, through cognitive conditioning, can’t see it.

One of the remedies to accepting Ad Hominem arguments, be it subconsciously or with total acceptance, is to become integrally connected to the present moment through awareness. Awareness can be described as the observer of what is happening now. It is a reliable antidote to the laziness the mind is apt to return to as it tries to conserve caloric energy and avoid the physical strain of cognitive dissonance.

Attacking the character of another person is just that: a personal attack. Should it be made without substantial basis or evidentiary support for the statement?

Let me leave you with these words from United States radio host Bernard Meltzer:

“Before you speak ask yourself if what you are going to say is true, is kind, is necessary, is helpful. If the answer is no, maybe what you are about to say should be left unsaid.”

Born and raised under the shadow of Mount Timpanogos, Camille Heckmann is relieved to be back in Utah County. A grad school dropout, former Army wife, mother to four kids and 21 moves, all followed by divorce and tragedy during her adult life, have provided enough texture to observe and write about the human condition. You can follow her exploits and writing career on Instagram at @millie_writer.

Newsletter