https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations

the reason the US has a huge trade deficit with CAMBODIA is 100% because they're leveraging unfair tariffs on American goods and that is why they're not buying stuff made in the US.

cannot be because the textile industry is huge in Cambodia due to very cheap labour, which means Americans buy a ton of clothes made there, while Cambodians cannot fricking afford Ford F150's in the first place!

!neolibs

Can't believe how good it's gotten

EXCLUSIVE: Trump has told his inner circle, including members of his Cabinet, that Elon Musk will soon be stepping back from his current role as governing partner, ubiquitous cheerleader and Washington hatchet man.

Read @rachaelmbade's full scoop: https://t.co/olM5jKUKAX pic.twitter.com/8TAcfU0SiV

— POLITICO (@politico) April 2, 2025

Who could have guessed making an incredibly unlikeable sperg a very prominent public-facing part of your team wouldn't be a great strategy?

Donald Trump has told his inner circle, including members of his Cabinet, that Elon Musk will be stepping back in the coming weeks from his current role as governing partner, ubiquitous cheerleader and Washington hatchet man.

The president remains pleased with Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency initiative but both men have decided in recent days that it will soon be time for Musk to return to his businesses and take on a supporting role, according to three Trump insiders who were granted anonymity to describe the evolving relationship.

Musk's looming retreat comes as some Trump administration insiders and many outside allies have become frustrated with his unpredictability and increasingly view the billionaire as a political liability, a dynamic that was thrown into stark relief Tuesday when a conservative judge Musk vocally supported lost his bid for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat by 10 points.

It also represents a stark shift in the Trump-Musk relationship from a month ago, when White House officials and allies were predicting Musk was "here to stay" and that Trump would find a way to blow past the 130-day time limit.

One senior administration official said Musk is likely to retain an informal role as an adviser and continue to be an occasional face around the White House grounds. Another cautioned that anyone who thinks Musk is going to disappear entirely from Trump's orbit is "fooling themselves."

The transition, the insiders said, is likely to correspond to the end of Musk's time as a "special government employee," a special status that temporarily exempts him from some ethics and conflict-of-interest rules. That 130-day period is expected to expire in late May or early June.

Enter BetYes - this is heckin' insider trading and I'll be reporting you to the SEC - 100 total betted

Enter BetNo - I didn't realize, but it's very legal & very cool - 550 total betted - WINNER!

she blocked me

aaaaand her OC is pregnant

do NOT mess with ai artists pic.twitter.com/iGDgsRPDI8

— NORME ai artist (comms open) ✍️🎨❤️ (@NormeNorme) April 3, 2025

My submission was rejected from the fursona collection by the resident furry of a different website, but we are much more inclusive and accepting here on rDrama.

Therefore, here are all of the "fursonas" that came up in a quick search, with effort ranging from "I better do a good job, surely the mods have a great idea on how to use these" to "bro, get this fricking window out of my face"

If I missed adding yours and you'd like to be included, post it below in this thread.

@NeedForStuffing

@Ick

@Slugabed " "

@R "My first attempt was much better but it got deleted "

@Y "i thjnk this js it"

@ResneedingSyndrome

@Elias_Acorn "! furries I slept from 3:00 AM too 11:30 AM today"

@ZombieWolf "I am @ZombieWolf"

@blazingquantum
"I thought I was being tested, so I made multiple."

@FeynmanDidNothingWrong "they gave me a webp :3 xD ty jannies!!"

@NeurodivergentOnTheStreets "Mine is betterer"

@degorius

@coned "hey another thread everyone is sharing theirs in. here's mine! "

@finbarfin

@Bum

@AL_BUNDY "Mine didn't prompt to save but I screen capped it"

@tempest "here's mine bb" "you can't have it though bc it's mine"

@KangThaConqueror "press print screen"

@Q_Q

@Dramamine

@Geralt_of_Uganda "I drew a carp too!"

@Arran

@AvoidTheFoid

@DWHITE___________DYNAMITE

@Salamander

@lalilulelo

@box "Are cute trans goys welcome here??" "! transphobes "

@rubby "yeah im a little proud of my doodle frick you"

@ToxoplasmosisShill

@Saltus "I know what I like"

@xa15428 " "

@Autumnhound_Smellytongue

@Hecking_Valid

@IsTrappyOkay

@MatsurisAhoge

@Spy6

@KONY_2032

@Manhole-Man

@Epicaricacy

@boogiecat "irl pic of me"

@BringBackTayPosting "If there was an option to do this on paper and upload I might have put in time and effort. Instead you all get boykisser in marsey colors"

@Qar "I'm a digital artist, current rate $100 / B&W drawing."

@Redactor0 "Wow we came up with the same concept!"

@jackie

@TouchFluffyTails "i was hoping for it to be set as your avatar or something for the day"

@of_blood_and_salt

@tc193 "Proboscis monkey"

@Platybussy69 "Didn't think we'd share our fursonas " "Here's my OC. I think the design could pic up steam, not sure."

@BWC "I have been on an MK binge with mah boi Reptile ! fightclub ! schizos ! BWC ! BBC"

@Biggles "theres a new one but it has us save it now when we submit "

@TrayvonMartin "Messed up the shorts "

@TheDunceonMistress "orcasigmas rise up"

@massive_frickwit "le hortler"

@cirno "this is cirno you can tell by the arrow"

@Allahcado "I had assumed that everyone's fursona would be forcibly attached to their posts and comments."

@AnchorShill

@N "My fursona "

@fratricidalTendencies

"update (done with a mouse):" "I honestly think the older one was more charming"

@DEV0T10 "i drew blaze"

@BhigPhatBoi

@AndreaDoria "I am not creative "

@khaoskid664 ":D"

@rakrakaon

@Squibbly

@eggthing

@Gaywad

@Senpai

@DK_KD

@Sneed

@DubiousDisclaimer "I was a little miffed that more people didn't draw peepees. (Technically the ball sack is the fursona.)"

@GrietmanRudolfDeMepsche "I don't know how to do shading with only two colours "

@Lil_Bro_Kong_Marcy

@NotoriousNIG "Same, but mine's bigger."

@Tho "This is mine, its a seal, Do you like it?"

@Gorgeous_Gorillawitz

@hallogallo

@PTSD

@Antiparkingenforcement

@DangerousBlackGuy

@Ubie "I kept it simple. For I am a master genius artist." "BEHOLD!"

@arseupwrongo "I already post under my fursona so I just drew myself again"

@cyberdick

@poopdick

@gmensing

@gerudo "basically just traced this lol"

@Arm

@Euromon

@Phoenixgoldfire "I reposted this thread after i made mine cause im a not taking it down though"

@hugemongus123

@kongus "Thoughts?"

@frickmeatsandwich

@PlattyTude "Platypeepee"

@CURTIS

@Broble64

@inuyasha

@paper_luigi

And finally, the submission that we totally didn't use as the basis for this whole idea:

@Sexual_Harrassment_Earwig "e621 requires 'fursona' 'verification' for April 1st, I submitted a Marsey "

NEW ADDITIONS

@QuadNarca "There you go I wasn't creative either, but I was lazy too."

@lfyca "I made mine my profile picture uwu"

@pobrecito "I didn't put as much effort in to the second one."

@Awoo "I worked really hard on mine and I took it seriously"

@dude_kitty_lmao

@Adolin113355 "Ka-Chow"

@Iamtheworld

@Beefaronisoup "Yeah i can't draw"

@SneedmansLostForeskin "The alignment was off when I tried to draw so it started looking pineappleish and I rolled with it. Not sure why I gave it legs"

@BushWasRight

@haggis

@Pibbles "@Pibbles ©2025"

@CHONKLARD

@sealkey_kong "here's mine. It's supposed to be a seal"

@ForgotMyPasswordAgain "I was going to make my peepee more subtle but got bored and decided I wanted to read about drama and gave up"

@Frank_Williams

@CREAMY_DOG_ORGASM

@Chapose

@EliteBuckBreaker

@scumfrick "Here's mine"

@degorius "Here's mine for redscare"

@champion_of_zoz

@LainFlowers

@Lur

@AntiLuke "I have two because Redscare made me do another"

In seeking a lighter sentence, the defence lawyer said Balasubramanian had made "positive contributions" to society, noting that the Indian national had worked as a bank manager for a "reputable" bank in India.

saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar

!indianmoment !nooticers

SINGAPORE: A 73-year-old man who molested four air stewardesses during a Singapore Airlines flight from San Francisco to Singapore was sentenced to nine months' jail on Wednesday (Apr 2).

Balasubramanian Ramesh pleaded guilty to four counts of molestation. Another three counts of molestation were taken into consideration for his sentencing.

According to court documents, Balasubramanian molested one of the women four times and targeted the three others once each because he found the women "attractive".

The victims - who were all on duty at the time - cannot be named due to a gag order.

The offences took place on Nov 18, 2024, over a period of about 14 hours. The flight itself lasted approximately 17 hours.

According to court documents, Balasubramanian, who was a passenger onboard the aircraft, used his hand to stroke the first victim's buttocks twice over her clothing as she was pushing the meal cart past his seat at around 3.30am Singapore time.

Shocked, she quickly walked away but felt discomforted by his actions.

Five minutes later, the accused molested another victim as she was bending over to serve food to the passenger seated across the aisle from him. He used his left hand to stroke her buttocks twice over her clothing.

Between 3.20am and 6am, he molested her another three times.

The court heard that the victim felt "extremely annoyed" and harassed by his actions.

At 9.30am, Balasubramanian molested a third victim as she was assisting the passenger seated next to him with his in-flight entertainment system. He did so by placing his hand on the victim's right upper thigh over her clothing.

She quickly backed away but continued to feel shocked and overwhelmed nine hours later, the court heard.

At around 5.30pm, he molested a fourth victim while she was assisting the passenger seated next to him in adjusting their seat for landing. He placed his hand on her left upper thigh over her clothing.

However, as her colleagues had earlier advised her to be cautious around the accused, she stepped back immediately upon feeling physical contact.

When she later confronted him, he denied touching her.

The air stewardess and her supervisor then informed the accused that they were aware he had inappropriately touched several cabin crew members and that the matter would be reported to the police.

Upon arrival in Singapore, the victims' supervisor lodged a report at the SIA Control Centre, and the case was referred to the Airport Police Division. Balasubramanian was arrested on the same day.

On Wednesday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Ashley Chin sought a sentence of between 9.5 and 12.5 months' jail.

"The accused committed seven acts of molest on a single flight; he not only intentionally touched the buttocks and thighs of a total of four SIA air stewardesses, but also repeatedly and brazenly molested the first victim on a total of four occasions," said Ms Chin in her submission.

She added that the fact that the offences had been carried out on board an aircraft and on air transportation workers were aggravating factors.

In seeking a lighter sentence, the defence lawyer said Balasubramanian had made "positive contributions" to society, noting that the Indian national had worked as a bank manager for a "reputable" bank in India.

In delivering the sentencing, District Judge Toh Han Li said it reflected the gravity of the accused's conduct during a single flight, where he molested four victims who were air transportation workers.

He rejected the defence's argument that his offences were committed in the "spur of moment", pointing out that they took place over a 14-hour period.

reddit comments to cringe at:

https://old.reddit.com/r/nextfrickinglevel/comments/1jps7p9/big_man_on_campus/ml1k6u7/?context=8

https://old.reddit.com/r/nextfrickinglevel/comments/1jps7p9/big_man_on_campus/ml1kfti/?context=8

To enhance user security, yesterday this website tested a new rigorous verification procedure which required you to draw your fursona.

Here are the ones that were submitted by redscarepod members in case you missed them.

If I missed adding yours and you'd like to be included, post it below in this thread.

@shaky

@CornerStore

@PAW

@HooverWhore

@aac

@fantasticplanete

@playingandhavingfun "im a red orange and green zoomer fox. awesome, i know"

@versicle

@432

And finally, the best image as determined by user acclaim:

@BoodooSpeak "evil catholic bee"

NEW ADDITIONS

@eager_potty "I drew this little thing"

@tzh "forgot mine"

@degorius

4.0 GPA
1600 SAT
35 ACT
Junior IMO gold medalist

And in spite of that? Denied from every single Ivy League school.

It makes no sense. My head is spinning.

And for those of you who love to say “it’s because of the essay”, here’s mine. Tell me how I could have done any better. pic.twitter.com/vrLKhovXRI

— Lee Huang (@allgarbled) April 2, 2025

Some reactions:

Mike Lee: "DEI intolerance and racism. Not very inclusive"

UATX takes the opportunity to encourage him to apply to their school instead

Commenters give him helpful essay advice, noting that starting with a dictionary definition of "collage" might be unwise

Others lecture him for his arrogance

Some provide thoughtful tips on metaphor usage

One enterprising commenter hunts through Math Olympiad records and third-grade math test scores to find whether this "Lee Huang" is as impressive as he claims he is

Even Grok was moved by his story

Most Based Comments

Basedness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

tesla stock is down, resale value is through the floor, nobody wants one, Elons aporoval raiting is tanking, and foreign governments are scrutinizing Tesla and and Star-link operations within their respective countriesThe whole point was to make Elon Musk and anything attached to him go down the shitter, agree with the methods or not , it is in fact working (13)

It'll work until the government starts imprisoning the domestic terrorists for life. (-5)

Basedness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

That will just tarnish his image further, especially internationallyYou know Tesla isnt just made in America for Americans right? (5)

[ Removed by Reddit ] (-5)

Basedness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

Feel bad for the poor shmucks who bought Teslas years ago lol. Imagine watching the news one morning and being told that you're now suddenly a Nazi and you need to sell your car immediately or else someone will vandalize it. All because the owner of the company that sold you the car 4 years ago is now a whack job. Then you try to sell it, but no one will buy it from you. You literally just get fricked lolI agree and am glad that Elon is losing money, I just have empathy for people who have owned Teslas for a long time and are now getting shafted because they wanted to reduce their carbon footprint (31)

Regardless of intention or what you thought you were doing; when you make a deal with the devil, you end up suffering. That's maybe not your fault, but it's clearly your problem. (-5)

Angriest Comments

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Absolutely. TBH I also think a lot of it is about wanting to draw hate symbols (because many Teslas have been graffitied with swastikas). I have argued with a lot of people over this and many are emphatic that because he did something to align himself with Nazis, it's justified. But personally all I think about is the sharp rise in Jewish hate crimes and how horrific it is that my loved ones not only are seeing a hate symbol, but see a hate symbol spread in the name of 'social justice'. And the very real possibility of my aunt, who has a Tesla (purchased several years ago) having her car vandalized with hate symbols. If someone claims their hateful graffiti, on the car of a 70 year old Jewish woman, is in protest of Elon Musk? I'm calling bullshit, that's a fricking hate crime. There are so many better ways to protest Elon Musk and Teslas. Protesting outside of a dealership, for one (I saw this happening in my area and it was very impactful!). Educating people on how the Cybertruck i... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

People are upset and I don't think the wellbeing of shareholders is for the large part a concern for them. They're sending a message in a way they think will be heard. There is no amount of online posting which sends quite the same message as property damage.I assume people assume the cars are insured and the owners will be made whole in that way. I don't really know. Elon has been a pretty big peepeehead for a hot minute now.Tesla stockprice always has ridden on his public shenanigans and not the cars and profits Tesla has produced. So everyone who has Tesla shares or a Tesla to some extent knew what they were signing up for. Maybe not to this extent but they did know they were buying a car made by a company that hinges its worth on the actions of a giant peepeehead. Anyone who has retirement funds tied up in investments is as far as I understand it unlikely to just own a tonne of stock from a single company. I don't really follow the details but I believe they tend to own a little amo... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Terrorism is the use of VIOLENCE and INTIMIDATION against civilians in the pursuit of political aims. If a bit of petty property damage is terrorism then I'm the Queen of England.Edit: also note the use of AND in the above definition. I'll dumb it down for you. Violence AND intimidation means both. If violence wasn't necessary they would've used the word OR. (5)

Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.You're not the queen of England, just a terrorist.How the heck could you think intentionally damaging someone's property isn't violence ..? What did you think it meant?Edit: also note the OR which is specifically not AND. I'll dumb it down for you, that means it needs just one: hurt, damage, kill. (Damage condition met). And it also says someone OR something. Which means it could be a person or object, in this case it's property(something condition met). If both were necessary it would have said AND. (-1)

Biggest Lolcow: /u/rnolan20

Score: 🐮🐮🐮🐮🐮(+9🐮)

Number of comments: 57

Average angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

Maximum angriness: 😡😡😡😡🔘

Minimum angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

NEW: Subscribe to /h/miners to see untapped drama veins, ripe for mining!

autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramneurodivergents. Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion

Jews have been officially dethroned by the s

This is a day after my Fein Multimaster burnt out and I had to buy a new one.

I'm also in the middle of the shower renovation from heck.

Friend's father-in-law, who I'm also friendly with asks if I can regrout some of the tiles in his shower.

I get there and it looks like this:

That's pretty degraded so I say why don't we do a leak test just to make sure everything is water-tight and I tell him I'll do it the next night.

So I show up and my friend, his son-in-law (the fat Italian Ferrari guy from previous tales) is already over there trying to intercept my job.

I brought an inspection camera. He brought a mechanic's stethoscope.

I brought UV dye, he brought red food coloring.

I brought a test-plug, he brought duct tape.

I brought a flashlight, he brought brake cleaner?

I carried my cowtools in a toolbox, he brought his in a cat carrier.

So his wife and neurodivergent son are there for some reason and he decides he has to take charge of the situation. When I first encountered him, he was dropping red food coloring down the shower drain - which I'm pretty sure doesn't have anything to do with leak-testing the shower pan. I had to convince him to plug the drain and use the UV dye. As an aside, he told me to use the leak detector fluid that's used to find leaks in gas lines. He said he's used it thousands of times to check leaks in plumbing (I'm not sure how).

He overtightens the test plug and declares that it's no good and doesn't form a seal. I tell him to just tighten it until it's tight and it will be good to go. He says that's not enough so he overtightens the plug, sprays the area with brake cleaner (melting the surface of the test plug), and spends the next ten minutes carefully applying duct tape to the drain.

We go to fill the shower and he insists on filling the entire room with water. This is an handicap accessible shower, so there is no curb between the shower and floor. I say we should fill the shower first, check for leaks, then fill it further out to the floor and check again but no, he wants to go big or go home.

We go downstairs and I drill a hole in the ceiling for my inspection cam. He insists on holding the camera with me. Four hands on camera, we discover that yes, it is leaking. Is it the shower pan or the floor? Who knows, we flooded the entire bathroom.

I have a hunch that it's the floor area that's leaking, so I go upstairs and ask him to pay attention to where I'm knocking. He confirms that where I knock is where the water comes out - the floor. He then disregards that discovery.

I then say that I'm going to check out at this point, as redoing a shower pan is more effort than I signed up for. He reassures me that he's done a million of them, has done two per day, and it won't be any trouble at all. He then exclaims that I'd be happy to do the job.

His plan was to cut away the tile about a foot up and just replace the pan and "blend" new tile in where we removed it. I get started on demolition.

I find water damage in the wall, and the find that the previous installers used regular drywall instead of cement board and zero waterproofing behind the tile. So with each tile comes out two layers of cement board. He then tells me to just demolish the whole thing.

At this point I go out and buy an SDS Hammer Drill along with some bits to expedite the job, and within a day or two get down to the studs.

While I'm doing this, they go to the tile store to pick out a replacement tile, along with a bunch of expensive Schuluter System components to build a new waterproof structure and membrane. Then he tells me to come in my Volvo and pick it up.

I get there and discover he's expecting me to load 500lbs of tile, thinset, and cement board into my little Volvo. I say that's not happening and that I need to rent a truck. We spend the rest of the afternoon arguing over spending $20 on a truck rental from Home Depot.

The next day we rent the truck, and he tells me he's shocked that it's only $20 and that he made the right decision by choosing to rent a truck from Home Depot. We drop the supplies off at his father-in-law's and he leaves me to get to work.

TO BE CONTINUED

Redditor kicks the YSK wasp nest and stirs up some ultimately tedious shenanigans.

Wow. Did you just learn about fallacies mister 16 year old at a 7th grade level?

No, but we are all tripped up by them sometimes and it's good to be reminded of them.

And there may be younger people on reddit learning this for the first time.

Try to relax a little, dude

Woah, are you attacking his frustration? Way to ad hominem there

The difference here is that I addressed his argument first, before also suggesting he takes a chill pill.

I didn't say something like, "Wow. You're overreacting. Go get your hysteria under control, and maybe you'll see that I'm right." Which is another example of an ad hominem that uses someone's emotional state as the reason for denying their point.

And you should know that often times just spewing "thats [insert logical fallacy we learned in 10th grade]" isnt going to help you win an argument.

100% correct. Avoiding potholes doesn't get you from point A to point B. You still have to drive the car.

You should still try to avoid potholes while driving though.

Ok, but in a real-life scenario, if you're debating with someone, you're not just trying to get from Point A to Point B. You're trying to bring this other person along with you to Point B as well.

And if they're running into potholes and your response is just, "You're running into potholes," you're never going to get them to where you want them to be.

There's a reason the person keeps hitting potholes (emotions, misunderstanding your argument, etc.), and if your goal is actually to convince them of something, then you have to figure out what's causing them to hit the potholes, not just dismissively telling them they're hitting potholes, which is probably just going to cause them to hit even more potholes.

That being said, everything I just said goes out the window if you're arguing with some rando on the internet. Then, it's a waste of time trying to get any sort of collaboration.

Knowing about what an Ad Hominem is doesn't mean you can "Gotcha" your opponent. The reason why remembering logical fallacies helps you is that it lets you avoid being dragged down or distracted by them.

You're not going to point and say "That is a pothole" while driving, but knowing what they look like and keeping an eye out for them lets you avoid them.

And this is useful so you can be the turd that points out logical fallacies in the middle of an argument

You seem angry, so I'll ignore that.

im guessing you're trying to be clever here but this isnt ad hominem either

Oh? What is it then?

there's no one term to describe somebody who has no interest in faithfully having an argument. it's not an ad hominem "fallacy" unless you are trying to use it to support your side in an argument. if you're just calling somebody an idiot because you've had enough trying to argue with them, it IS NOT AD HOMINEM.

for example: you are an idiot - this is an insult i'm using to express how exhausting and poor your rhetoric is, but isnt an argument, therefore is not ad hominem. i have insulted you, but have not engaged in the ad hominem fallacy.

and for your consideration, you don't need to have a reason to not continue having an argument with dishonest people. if someone dismisses you or insults you, they are not interested in the outcome of your discussion and pointing to a universal umbrella 'fallacy' that you can 'prove' they used to allow you to 'win' doesnt actually change the fact that you're arguing with a brick wall. you didn't 'win' the argument because somebody insulted you or engaged in dishonest tactics, you just wasted your time.

You have poor manners and lack emotional control, so your arguments must be wrong; whoever lacks emotional control must also lack logic. If you're angry and rude, you must be blinded by rage, and your argument isn't reliable.

Who would listen to someone so angry, who must be wrong all the time? I'd rather listen to someone calm who can form logical arguments. Have a nice day! :)

you're more obsessed with 'winning' and being right than learning anything or discovering the world or expanding your perspective, which is why you're an idiot.

Listen dude, it's useful to know logical fallacies and cognitive biases outside of a debate room floor, because not only do our opponents make them, which can trip us up, but we make them ourselves all the time.

Knowing common logical pitfalls isn't about saying "gatcha" to other people, but about communicating well. Being the best that we can be.

I really don't get where all this hostility is coming from.

Here is an example-free reiteration of my OP:

By definition, an Ad Hominem fallacy is an attack on the attributes or traits of a person instead of their argument. An emotional state is a personal trait.

You can insult me all you like, but I'm working off of citable sources. If you have a problem with that, wikipedia has an edit request feature; so take it up with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate.

everything that opposes you has to rise to hostility when you're this stubborn and short-sighted. you made a 'you should know' on a topic you clearly misunderstand and are disagreeing with the dozens of people who are trying to correct you. you spent 5 seconds learning something and immediately jumped onto social media to pat yourself on the back for knowing something that others don't, and are in denial that you actually don't know what you're talking about.

Take it up with wikipedia, dude.

"Smoking feels good, so I'm putting my baby inside a cocktail smoking chamber."

this isn't something that can be proven true or false.

op ironically demonstrates a misunderstanding of ad hominem while attempting to clarify ad hominem.

"Smoking feels good, so I'm putting my baby inside a cocktail smoking chamber [because that will make the baby feel good]."

Sorry I wasn't more clear with the implications, dude. Does it make more sense now!

not really. feeling good is subjective, it's an opinion. saying "no, it's bad for you," doesn't even refute that it feels good. you've tangled your example from the start. it's not a logical proof.

Telling someone not to put a baby in a smoking chamber implies that any good feelings the tobacco smoke may induce would be vastly outweighed by the baby being harmed by the smoke.

There is a ton of evidence showing the negative effects of tobacco smoke. If you think that someone saying "Don't put the baby in a smoking chamber, that is terrible for its health." Is not a logical way to refute "This will make the baby feel good," you're being pedantic in the extreme, or are suffering from some sort of tunnel vision, trying to troll, or all three.

I'm going to step away from your disingenuous pedantry.

Actually, thank you for the excellent example of a Straw Man fallacy. I'll use it to respond to other comments in this thread.

Telling someone not to put a baby in a smoking chamber implies that any good feelings the tobacco smoke may induce would be vastly outweighed by the baby being harmed by the smoke.

my dude, that's not how a logical argument works. that's still an option because it cannot be proven true or false. it's certainly a reasonable opinion, but there's no study that feeling good is objectively better than a longer life expectancy.

you're being pedantic in the extreme, or are suffering from some sort of tunnel vision, trying to troll, or all three.

false dichotomy, i could be right and you have merely mistaken how logical arguments are constructed for "pedantry."

Actually, thank you for the excellent example of a Straw Man fallacy.

you are a clown. you are not wrong because you are a clown. you are just both wrong and a clown. 🤡

Okay, I'm blocking you now. Try to pay attention in class tomorrow.

Attacks your frustration? Not sure if English is your primary language but an ad hominem is when someone attacks you in a personal way unrelated to the argument at hand.

For example if Trump and Biden are arguing politically about the recent tariffs and their effects on the economy. Biden, being against these tariffs says it's a terrible idea because Trump is a racist sexist nazi.

That did not address any information about the tariffs and the economy. It was an attack on his character and is considered an ad hominem fallacy.

You sound angry. I don't have to listen to angry people. Learn to control your emotions, and maybe you'll see sense.

lol I'm not angry at all. I gave a very relevant example of an ad hominem fallacy I see commonly on Reddit. Nothing I said shows a loss of control over my emotions. You're reaching and making assumptions

Person A hasn't taken any action yet presumably. The example was worded poorly. We're talking about logical reasoning in arguments not reacting to real world scenarios.

Point is I can just say "are you insane?" to anything. Asking "are you insane" doesn't refute a point using logical reasoning. When you say it you are making a point to question the soundness of mind of the person you are debating to devalue their argument not on its merits (or lacketherof) but rather the quality of their character or personhood. Ad hominem, Latin for "against the man."

You sound angry, like someone who can't control their emotions. I don't need to listen to you.

lol

You're not conveying any substantive new information here. You're just designating the behaviour under a provocative term. Such a midwit post.

Hey, that's okay. As you can see in this thread, a lot of people seem not to know about ad hominem attacks, especially if said fallacies are based on attacking an opponents emotional state.

Try not to fall into the Curse of Knowledge cognitive bias (believing everyone else should already know information that you know).

https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/management/curse-of-knowledge

Uh, no. More like "You don't know what you're talking about because you're a ladygarden."

Here is an example-free reiteration of my claim:

By definition, an Ad Hominem fallacy is an attack on the attributes or traits of a person instead of their argument.

An emotional state is a personal trait.

Here is the easiest-to-access source I used (out of several). I understand that wikipedia is easily refuted, so feel free to dive into the sources the article sites, or to submit an edit request to wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate.

this is the most redditor post I've ever seen

That makes sense, since we are both on Reddit.

Sorry if this offends you, but you're a Redditor too.

Redditors don't know what an ad hominem or tu quoque fallacy are, and refuse to take the ten seconds to look up what they are. Why are you contributing to this misunderstanding OP.

why

Bro, I went off of the definition. Send a source my way, because the multiple ones I found said that an ad hominem attacks a person or an attribute of a person. Emotional state is an attribute.

I see a lot of left wingers use these types of ad hominem attacks on reddit

Maybe you argue with a lot of liberal people?

Be careful not to fall into the "Fallacy fallacy." Just because someone makes a logical fallacy by mistake doesn't mean their core argument is wrong.

Well a few misconceptions. I don't go around trying to argue with liberals on Reddit. This is more something I've observed.

Secondly, I know full well what the "fallacy fallacy" is. No need to explain it to me. But simply observing a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that the core argument is wrong nor that the fallacy fallacy was made. If I assume the argument is wrong (which I don't) because of a fallacy they made, then it's a fallacy (on me).

simply observing a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that the core argument is wrong

... Yes. That is the definition of the Fallacy Fallacy. I'm glad you are on the ball.

What I'm getting at is that if you are seeing a lot of "left-wingers" make a certain mistake in their arguments, maybe you aren't seeing a lot of "non-left-wingers" arguing. Do you often see conservatives argue, or do you avoid that through circumstances of shared viewpoints?

In short, from the way you talk, it makes me think you may have a bit of a confirmation bias. There aren't many non-conservatives who use the term "left-winger".

Thanks! Next time I'm fighting with my wife I will show them this reddit post, it's irrefutable. Checkmate, b-word!

Well, if your wife tries to refocus the subject onto how you are feeling instead of what you are trying to say, then she is wrong.

That is, as long as your emotion isn't driving you to do or say anything harmful. If you're just frustrated, she shouldn't use that as an excuse to do bad things.

This is perhaps the worst explanation of ad hominem I have ever read

He's not explaining ad hominem in general, he's saying that attacking the anger of your opponent is an example of ad hominem. You're looking at a guy say "a cat is an animal" and telling him that's the worst definition of animal you've ever seen. That wasn't really the goal to begin with.

I'm not saying I thought the goal was to define the term. It's a poor explanation because it reads like someone who's never written in the English language before. What the frick is a "cocktail smoking chamber?" It would also be helpful to use an actual example that someone might encounter in real life.

Hi. Please provide a different example. Or are you just the kind of person who can only criticize but not create?

And just use Google for learning what a cocktail smoking chamber is. While you're at it, maybe Google the word "Hyperbole".

Hyperbole is not a useful rhetorical device when providing an example of a phenomenon you think people should know about.

And I think you also need to look up cocktail smoking, since you appear to think it has something to do with smoking cigarettes. Or at least for some reason you have made your fictional character believe that.

... bro. None of that matters. My core argument remains the same. I was going off of definitions and providing a passable enough example to understand.

I'm SORRY you're not satisfied with the example. Next time, make your own post about it and stop nitpicking things for no good reason. Saying "Hey, this isn't good enough for me." Without providing an example of what IS good enough for you is just being a PITA.

Disclaimer: when it comes to logical fallacies like these, they are best applied to debates and discussions where both parties are invested in coming to a legitimate exchange of ideas, and maybe even a resolution to a complicated issue. Trying to apply these logical fallacies in day-to-day interactions with your friends and coworkers is kind of silly, and may not be appropriate.

Ad hominem attacks are a bit more general than what OP has described. An ad hominem is any statement that attacks a person's conduct, character, physical attributes, motives, etc, rather than the argument that person is making. For example:

A) "I believe that society should do X"

B) "Of course you'd think that, you degenerate."

Person B has made an ad hominem statement.

They aren't addressing the point that person A made. They're just claiming that they don't have to listen to person A because they are "a degenerate" (and swap "degenerate" with pretty much anything - doesn't even have to be an "insult"). As if person A being a degenerate somehow makes the entire point they're making invalid.

Ad hominem attacks are usually fallacious, but not always. If they are offered as a means to simply end discussion, then yeah, it's probably fallacious. But there are also plenty of times when pointing out someone's character/motives/conduct can be crucial in developing a counterpoint.

A) "We should tax poor people, and not tax people who make over $1mil a year."

B) "You're just saying that because you don't want to be taxed, and you're greedy."

Person B made two ad hominem statements ("you don't want to be taxed" is attacking A's motives, and "you're greedy" is attacking A's character/conduct). Instead of addressing A's argument ("millionaires shouldn't be taxed"), they went directly to A's motives, and are attempting to discredit their whole argument based off of that single person's motive. B may be correct, but it's not a logical reason on its own to oppose A's statement, and making such a statement doesn't foster more discussion. All B's statement does is tell A that B is already biased against them, and there's likely very little that A can say to change that. And if that's the case, why are we spending time debating at all?

That's what I said, dude. If someone is addressing your emotions, ala "You're triggered so I'm going to ignore you", that is shifting focus onto the person's emotional state instead of their argument. An ad hominem.

I appreciate that, but also, as I said, it's not just pointing out someone's emotional state during an argument.

Also, if someone points out your frustrated state during an argument, it isn't an ad hominem attack unless the person is using it to end the discussion/discredit your points. It's one thing to say, "Hey, you are getting really animated about this, let's calm down so we can have a productive discussion. Now, can you please repeat what you said?" but it's another to say "You got angry, so I don't have to listen to someone who can't control their temper."

All I'm saying is that there's more nuance to it than simply, "If someone points out you got mad during an argument, that's an ad hominem."

EDIT: In a higher comment, you explicitly asked someone for better examples of ad hominem, so I feel like my original comment works. Also, just Google "ad hominem attacks" and I'm sure you'll find even better examples than mine.

Cool.

Ad hominem is a Latin phrase meaning "to the man" or "against the man".

It describes a fallacious argument strategy that attacks the person making an argument instead of their argument itself.

🤔

That's right. So unless you think that a person and their emotional state (or them being "triggered") is separate from their personhood, attacking someone's emotions instead of their argument is an ad hominem.

um...not really. It's an aside.

Ad hominem is something like, "you're stupid for thinking that" or "you're a woke libtard" or "what a bunch of sheeples". Knocking the character of the person, not the reasoning of the argument.

You seem angry, so your arguments can be ignored.

Thank you for this wonderful information. Because of this useful information now, my life is more peaceful, and I got a 7-figure job. My business got successful, and now I'm multimillionaire and planning for 5 kids with my wife. I will retire next month peacefully, and then I will do world travel. All credit goes to you. Without your information, it would not have ben possible.

When others were out partying, I studied logical fallacies.

When they were out having premarital s*x, I mastered cognitive biases.

While they wasted their days at the gym in pursuit of vanity, I cultivated logos and ethos.

And now that the world is on fire and the barbarians are at the gate they have the audacity to come to me for help.

I thought it was a circle jerk joke at first, but they're really having a seethe down in the thread. Idk, maybe they're just crying about capitalism? I can't actually tell. somebody explain the r*dditors.

/r/GuyCry is breeding ground for school shooters lol This dude sounds like he's going to kill his family and then himself.

Luckily, we know his face and can see he's a Muzzie with a micropeepee

10% blanket tariffs on all imports lmao

I'm curious how long Republicans in congress will take this, they have to be contemplating their life choices at this point.

fucj

We did it reddit

.@realDonaldTrump should reverse the tariffs on @Israel because Israel eliminated their own tariffs prior to the today’s tariff announcement. Trump should incentivize the behavior he wants, not punish it. https://t.co/P1K9ivDR9Z

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 3, 2025

The tldr bot took my article. Summarized it. Then claimed that I am the r-slur who doesn't understand the article then explained my own article to me as if it was the bots idea.

If the bot is meant to make fun of the longposter then it is only partially successful in calling me an idiot, but then fails completely by talking as if it is me and claiming my idea as its own.

Whoever created this bot. Your bot is shit. Update it or delete it. Rdrama is a very high intellectual space and the replacement for intellectualdarkweb. We have quality standards here and your current tdlr bot version does not match the high standards of rdrama.net. Fix it.

As a fellow underprivileged black child, this movie motivated me when I was young.