Actionable steps here are more concretely achieved by orgs or people with current access to existing various published things (blogs, newspapers, etc etc). But I think something like Prolewiki might be able to be a spark point for something like this, depending on whether Prolewiki participants/management are willing to be the creation point of something rather than just a documenting and citing site.

I see some things pop up on Medium that successfully spread but I'm not sure how often those do that. Could be that's a handful of things among tens of thousands that just waste their time. Likely depends on whether big networks reshare content and that momentum keeps going.

Generally the point here is to write something that's clear enough for people to link to it frequently, and also potentially inspiring enough for others to also write about the phenomenon. If something can be written that also gets others to write about it then you get momentum.

Really the most meaningful thing here is to get a few places to write about something like this and then put it on natopedia, where it is then going to gain the automatic credibility of being on natopedia in the eyes of libs and debatebros, those people will then take part in opposing the tactic whenever they recognise it. Once you get those people on board with opposing it because they're rules-perverts and will consider it against the "rules" the whole tactic may effectively collapse, in the online space at least.

So really the limitation here is access to a resource, that resource being article publishing online.

The thing is, if we believe we are on the side of reason, the nature of such an argument should only be considered a nuisance to us rather than catastrophic. If I want to prove that Israel is fascist and someone hits me with the "not everyone you disagree with is a fascist" line, then I can simply ask them to give me a set of criteria and either argue the criteria being incorrect or argue that Israel meets it (depending on the criteria, context, etc.) What our comrade is proposing is a way of opening discussion so that preconceived notions can be challenged more thoroughly.

Socialism is the ruthless criticism of all that exists; if a socialist can't produce a justification for their ideology, this isn't an argument they should be getting into (they should be studying, whether through reading or investigating the world).

CPC

lmao noice, I use it a lot lmao

It sort of is, but I think it is also distinct from your average ad hominem and widespread enough to deserve it's own name. You don't call someone "tankie", "woke", "SJW" and the likes the same way nor for the same reasons you would call someone an idiot or a pig nor does it have the same kind of implications. It's not just any kind of common name calling, it imply the target is an active part of some nebulous group that is inherently assumed to be a threat to some "fundamental value of our society", it is specificaly reserved for peoples who are a threat (or at least perceved threat) to the status quo.

Ad hom is in a Venn diagram here, because the two are often used together but are not the same. An ad hom is specifically when you say something that boils down to "You're a scoundrel [or otherwise undesirable], so your argument is incorrect". The labeling strategy that Awoo is discussing is closer to equivocation (insinuating things are the same that are different) as a means of obfuscation, such as the "terrorist" example. See how so many people complaining about the Hot Houthi Winter interview with Hasan were calling the interviewee a "terrorist" in order to get people to not actually think about what he is, which is decidedly not a terrorist. What specifically the dude is saying or even the truth of it hasn't even come into play yet.

So I spent a minute there trying really hard to figure out the difference as I typed because it's honestly a good question on your part, and I think the answer is that this thought-terminating cliche bit is used to conclude that the person is a scoundrel, while ad homs are predicated on the person being seen as a scoundrel to falsely prove some other point (Biden being an imperialist does not make the time of day change when he comments that it's morning). The reason these are so hard to pin down, aside from the fact that they are informal fallacies, is that common communication and even argumentation is filled with implied premises, inferences, and conclusions, so mapping them out formally enough to be able to compare the structure is a genuinely difficult task.

What do you think, @Awoo@hexbear.net?

Ad hom isn't intended to specifically thought-terminate people. It's just a thing you sling at people.

The use of "tankie" or "terrorist" is to define [person speaking or being spoken about] as a "baddy person" and therefore absolutely anything and everything they say can and should be disregarded, otherwise you are also a baddy person and thus not a good person. It's intended to reinforce group-think. The reactionary right use "woke" with the intent of preventing their members from listening to something a "woke" person might say, to make sure that they thought-terminate and do not think about whatever is said. The purpose is to function as a shield against anything that might change their views. It's to shut down their brains to anything people might say to them.

It has the appearance of ad hom, but it has a specific higher function.