An Ad hominem is an argument in one combats the person and not an idea that the person holds. It seems bad, doesn’t it? What if there were exceptions to it?
Generally, in an argument, it’s not very nice to say „X does so and so, therefore I disagree with everything X says”.
On another hand, if I listen to music in my apartment, I can say „X does this bad thing, so I won’t listen to his music”. Or, I can say „Y, in personal life, was a bad person, so I won’t support him by buying his books, even if they have valid arguments in them”.
If I put my opinion in public, that’s not very nice. I could say „I disagree with the actions of X / Y”, but, still, that’s not very nice.
On another hand, taking personal actions based on judgments might be valid.
I think this habit is quite widespread. A lot of people don’t read certain types of articles. For some people, can-can news is to be avoided. For others, sports. Or politics. For others, diplomacy and international relations might be boring.
We all make decisions on going to a restaurant in favor of another, buy a product instead of another one and so on. At some level, we all judge.
Even on news, it’s very hard to read everything that comes into view. You must decide if you like A or B, if you prefer C to D or not.
But saying in public „A is better than B, therefore I won’t read B” is not-so-good.
