> This is called the Genetic Fallacy, it is completely irrelevant who said anything as long as that thing is true and/or useful. Nobody owns words.
Is it irrelevant, though? I mean, there's a reason you haven't edited your post to say "Kevin Strom, a noted white nationalist[1], is credited with". (Or even just "Kevin Strom is credited with", with no reference to his politics at all.)
Notably, you're employing a fallacy as well -- "Tacitus or Voltaire" functions as an appeal to authority here. These famous people said this, it must have merit. A resistance to correctly attributing the quote suggests that the mantle of authority is the point.
(I don't care about debate fallacies, really. I just like to bring up when people complaining about them are employing their own. Petty, I know.)
Yes, it's as irrelevant as Aristotle's opinions on slavery is to his work on formal logic. The words bear no evidence whatsoever of the author's opinions, therefore it's fallacious and irrelevant to bring them up.
>there's a reason you haven't edited your post to say
Correct, and that reason is that I don't care. I'm entirely ok with quoting a white nationalist, I have quoted worse human beings.
>Notably, you're employing a fallacy as well -- "Tacitus or Voltaire" functions as an appeal to authority here.
I think you're overreaching here a little bit to fit my words to a fallacy rather than the other way around. I don't care one bit who said the words, you can attribute them to whoever you like, go ahead and attribute them to Einstein or Ghandi, that won't increase or decrease their truth value. It's a tautologically true aphorism, anybody can say it and it would still ring true.
>A resistance to correctly attributing the quote
No such thing, I immediately conceded that point when it became clear to me it's a misattribution, the reason I haven't back-edited the comment is that my comment doesn't depend on it, you can substitute "X" or "Santa Claus" for "Voltaire" and you would still get a comprehensible argument that you can either side with or oppose.
>people complaining about them are employing their own
Eh, I wouldn't say your rather stretched interpretation of my words are evidence they are an appeal to authority, sounds to me like you really just wanted to use the words "Appeal To Authority" in a sentence.
Regardless, if the mention of Voltaire annoys you, remove it from your mental cache of the comment and I will defend every single word of the resulting argument, provided you didn't remove or add any other thing.
>I don't care about debate fallacies, really
You should, they are convenient names for extremely common and sometimes-involuntary logical shortcuts that people take all the time which make arguments and conversations blurrier and less fruitful. Me naming a fallacy in an argument doesn't automatically mean that argument is invalid, it just means the argument defender wants to hide something (possibly from themselves), it's not a gotcha to catch your opponent doing then declare victory, it's a "code review" tool to make conversations clearer, more honest and consequently better.
Is it irrelevant, though? I mean, there's a reason you haven't edited your post to say "Kevin Strom, a noted white nationalist[1], is credited with". (Or even just "Kevin Strom is credited with", with no reference to his politics at all.)
Notably, you're employing a fallacy as well -- "Tacitus or Voltaire" functions as an appeal to authority here. These famous people said this, it must have merit. A resistance to correctly attributing the quote suggests that the mantle of authority is the point.
(I don't care about debate fallacies, really. I just like to bring up when people complaining about them are employing their own. Petty, I know.)
[1]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/05/30/fac...