>> that gives the impression of a deep understanding of the human psyche when in reality it shows at best the ability to memorize the criteria around a few invented categories and give a horoscope based off of them.

This is ad hominem. You are ignoring what is said and making a personal attack. That is what ad hominem is, ignoring the argument and attacking the man.

> Do you apply this...

This is ad hominem.

> I don't need to catalogue the fallacies to point out why this is not a good idea.

This is invincible ignorance fallacy.

I think the basic assumption is that you are diagnosing someone that you do not know and have never met, and that by doing so, you are engaging in folly.

Once again, ad hominem. This is some kind of a record.

That said, personally knowing someone is not necessary for psychological diagnosis. All it takes is a few details. I have never met President Trump, but I have no doubt whatsoever he has Narcissistic Personality Disorder simply because he meets the criteria. I have never met President Lincoln, but I have no doubt he suffered from Major Depression. Kanye's symptoms of BPD have been not only in the news, but in the headlines. It is not a difficult diagnosis, and if it took me a minute to realize it, it would take a psychologist seconds. And it doesn't take a psychologist to diagnose an obvious disorder any more than it takes an orthopedic to diagnose a compound fracture or a mechanic to recognize a flat tire.

You seem to be confusing disagreements with personal insults. Not everything you don't like is ad-hominem.

Here's an example of real ad-hominem: "You are an obnoxious narcissistic piece of shit that thinks every disagreement is a personal insult because you can't stand not being right". If I were to use that sentence in an argument, that would be ad-hominem.

Asking whether or not you apply same standards of not using logical fallacies (from your original comment, I personally doubt it) is not ad-hominem because it's calling you out on asymmetric standards - apparently, you're free to commit logical fallacies as much as you want, but the moment someone else does, you halt all argument and just shout "ad hominem!" without any further elaboration and expect the other person to do the legwork of analysing how and why is the argument fallacious and fix it. That's not good faith discussion.

> You seem to be confusing disagreements with ad-hominem.

Incorrect, and this is ad hominem.

>>>>> impression of a deep understanding of

Who is being referred to? Who is being characterized? Certainly not no one. Thus, ad hominem attack.

> you're free to commit logical fallacies as much as you want, but the moment someone else does, you halt all discussion and just shout "fallacy!"

This is ad hominem. But it is also a straw man masquerading as tu quoque.

I'm abandoning this conversation because you seem unwilling to respond to the point of my post and bring any kind of argument to the table that isn't "fallacy!".

Also, fallacy fallacy.

Ad hominem and invincible ignorance. Who says what never matters, it is what is said that is the province of valid argument. I have made no unsupported assertions regarding the truth values of fallacious responses to my initial argument, only identified these responses as specific fallacies to justify not responding. Thus, I have not made any appeal to fallacy, leaving the accusation(s) of such as straw man arguments. I would be more than happy to entertain valid argument, but none have been made in this thread in response to my OP in preference to attempts to humiliate, ostracize and bully me. Any scrutiny whatsoever of me is fallacious argument.

I agree with you. There was no attempt to engage the material of your original post. It was classified as psycho-babble from the outset and thus engaging it seriously would nullify that classification.

There was no attempt to engage with the material of the original post, because the original post contains no material, just various claims pulled out of thin air:

> Kanye is a garden variety manic-depressive

> It is likely West has one of the more benign flavors of NPD

> I think his biggest problem is BPD and drug abuse

The rest of the post is either true-sounding-at-first, but completely meaningless claims, or completely obvious things that provide no insight whatsoever.

> NPD patients usually don't suffer

Completely false. Narcissistic injury is extremely painful, and one of the reasons narcissists lash out in the first place.

> [NPD treatment can] correct if not cure the disorder in under 2 years

Also not true. Narcissism is a personality disorder, and "curing" narcissism in 2 years is not common. Everything "can" be done, theoretically, but the implications of the sentence is that Narcissism is somehow special in that regard. It's not.

> but due to the combination with NPD and vast wealth, and probably being surrounded by those that will never deny him his insane impulses, he's probably not going to get help until he bottoms out in clinical major depression for months, if he survives it

So assuming he's NPD, his wealth and sycophants will lead him to destruction? Yeah, quite profound. He also has clinical major depression? Where did that come from?

"Psycho-babble" is a perfectly appropriate description of the original comment.

This is the greatest argument thread on Hacker News I've seen a while, and brought me lots of joy. Hats off to you gentlemen.