Saying it does not make it so. It seems to me that referencing your prior behavior and attacking your lack of sources are both relevant and productive for discussion, while misusing fallacies to shut down arguments you don’t like is, ironically, a rhetorical fallacy. They aren’t deflecting by randomly bringing up some unrelated characteristic (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food, I have it on good authority that they’re a terrible parent!), they’re calling back to your previous behavior in similar situations (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food because they have a history of giving people food poisoning!). That isn’t ad hominem, or whataboutism.
If your character and actions might be damming to your arguments, attacking them is attacking your argument, especially when also attacking your sources! Ironically, continuing to attack the comic artist without citing sources is ad hominem, by definition.
Saying it does not make it so. It seems to me that referencing your prior behavior and attacking your lack of sources are both relevant and productive for discussion, while misusing fallacies to shut down arguments you don’t like is, ironically, a rhetorical fallacy. They aren’t deflecting by randomly bringing up some unrelated characteristic (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food, I have it on good authority that they’re a terrible parent!), they’re calling back to your previous behavior in similar situations (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food because they have a history of giving people food poisoning!). That isn’t ad hominem, or whataboutism.
If your character and actions might be damming to your arguments, attacking them is attacking your argument, especially when also attacking your sources! Ironically, continuing to attack the comic artist without citing sources is ad hominem, by definition.