One of the most reliable indicators that someone has run out of arguments is when they stop attacking the point and start attacking the person making it. The logical fallacy is ancient — shooting the messenger — and it is often paired with its close cousin, poisoning the well. Together, they form the perfect shield for people who cannot, or will not, engage with ideas.
This post was inspired by a comment on the New Zealand Centre for Political Research Facebook Group, responding to my No Minister article: Labour’s 2026 Policy: Powered by Unicorn Farts.
The Facebook thread can be found via the New Zealand Centre for Political Research Facebook Group (26/08/2026). [Apparently now removed]
Among the replies was this brilliant piece of intellectual craftsmanship:
The Facebook thread can be found via the New Zealand Centre for Political Research Facebook Group (26/08/2026). [Apparently now removed]
Among the replies was this brilliant piece of intellectual craftsmanship:
Oh another right-wing group that only has lies and crap to talk about.
That was it. No refutation. No counter‑argument. No engagement with the content. Just a drive‑by dismissal based entirely on who they think the messenger is.
It’s textbook shooting the messenger, reinforced with poisoning the well:
- Don’t look at the argument.
- Don’t examine the evidence.
- Don’t engage with the reasoning.
- Just declare the source “right‑wing,” and therefore invalid.
- Add “lies and crap” for flavour.
The Tactic Is Everywhere
This kind of response is depressingly common. It’s the default move for people who cannot defend their position, cannot explain their assumptions, and cannot tolerate the possibility that someone outside their ideological tribe might have a point.
Instead of engaging with the argument, they attack the identity of the speaker. Instead of addressing the content, they smear the context. Instead of thinking, they label.
It’s the rhetorical equivalent of sticking fingers in one’s ears and shouting.
Why They Do It
Because it’s easy.
It requires no reading, no analysis, no effort, and no risk. It allows the commenter to feel morally triumphant without doing any intellectual work. It also signals loyalty to their tribe: “I dismissed the right people, therefore I’m one of the good ones.”
This is how political discourse collapses — not through disagreement, but through the refusal to engage at all.
The Cure: Demand Arguments, Not Labels
If someone wants to disagree, fine. If someone wants to challenge the numbers, great. If someone wants to debate the fiscal logic, even better.
But if all they can muster is “right‑wing lies,” then they’re not debating. They’re not thinking. They’re not even participating.
They’re just shooting the messenger.
And that tells you everything you need to know about the strength of their position.
Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister - this article was sourced HERE
5 comments:
They do this - and it succeeds - because of the
" indoctrinated shallow minds" receiving the message - thanks to the NZ Ed. system for the last 30 years.
This happened to me all the time if I questioned the free palestine protesters gathered at britomart auckland. I would never be rude to them. I would just ask them some genuine questions. They could never answer those questions. Instead they would just call me a right wing colonist as an answer. They said nz was illegally occupied also. They would kind of gang up on If you were by yourself also. Abour 5 or 6 of them would come over and start yelling at you. It was the weirdest experience. This is what other leftist political groups are like also.. The same people were all holding banners in the teachers and nurses weird protests down Queen Street .
It's also a logical fallacy when employed in the course of debate. Known as an "ad hominem" attack, it takes the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly, casting doubt on their character or personal attributes, in an attempt to discredit their argument. The real outcome is, of course, to destroy their own credibility and there are a number of contributors to this platform who make a habit of it. Perhaps I should put it in terms any Kiwi should understand - they are playing the man not the ball. And in any contest, that deserves a red card from the referee.
Woke answer when challenged:
1. you are racist
or ( when defeated)
2. you are stressing me.
Both end the exchange
Freedom of speech means the ability to say things that are truthful even if they offend people. The truth is always painful . Constructive criticism has always been one of the tenets of Western Culture .
It is Progressive education that has our children believe that being corrected damages their self esteem . Personal insults , of course are unacceptable .
Bring back Traditional Education that had work marked and demanded correction of mistakes whether they be spelling, wrong facts or illogical.
The distinction of 'ad hominem ' comments and constructive criticism absulutely needs addessing .
Perhaps exercises in what is acceptable constructive ctriticism and what is not should be taught in our educational institutions . ' Speak truth with love ' as scripture says. How to phrase things tactfully. Gaynor
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.