Thank you for your help! (edited w/answer; Gish Gallop)

[Cerridwen]

Gish Gallop

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

The formal debating term for this is spreading. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common.

-----------------

Another piece I found at the RationalWiki link is:

Argumentum ad tl;dr

A related distraction technique, familiar to readers of A Storehouse of Knowledge, involves swamping an opponent in long-winded screeds of text to artificially inflate the appearance of depth and quality of information presented. Quite often, the actual content of several paragraphs can be summed up in a sentence. While the Gish Gallop floods an opponent with many, but relatively short points, argumentum ad tl;dr flings text walls so massive and impenetrable that even Victor Hugo would blush. Both tactics, however, have exactly the same purpose: to bury and obfuscate the core points that need to be discussed under a quantity of superfluous information. A user might well think that these techniques show that they know what they're talking about, but in the end they act simply as distractions. Note that both are different (but not mutually exclusive) from argumentum ad nauseam, which bolsters the apparent credibility of the argument simply by repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again.

For example, Jason Lisle's blog posts and "research paper" about the anisotropic synchrony convention prattle on endlessly about relativistic physics, hiding the fact that his fundamental assumptions were, to say the least, a little far-fetched. Similarly, engineer Dewey Larson has written numerous books on his theories about matter, going on for pages and pages about the need for critical thinking and letting evidence fit hypotheses, when what he actually proposes in these weighty self-published tomes can be summed up in one sentence.

That also looks very familiar. "Scholars" from aei, heritage foundation, and various other r/w "think tanks," publish many articles using that same form.



--------------My original OP/request for help------------------

Subject line: Help finding a post from the past few days, please.

I'm pretty sure it was posted in the last few days. It was not in an OP but was a reply in a thread.

There is a name for the tactic of rapidly (?) stating lie after lie after lie, twisting facts into lies and calling it "truth," thereby making it impossible to refute each and every lie. I'm sorry I don't remember the exact description.

Someone posted the name of that tactic.

If you were that person or know of that post, please provide a link. If you know the name of that type of "debate tactic," please provide that.

Thank you.

[warrior1]

1. I believe the word starts with a g

[arcane1]

2. "Gish gallop" perhaps?

I'm not sure about the thread, but that's one term for that kind of behaviour.

[Cerridwen]

4. Yes!!! That's it!! Thank you!!!!

Pardon my exclamation points. I am that happy to see that answer.

[warrior1]

3. Gish Gallop

[Cerridwen]

5. Perfect! Yes!!! That is it!

As noted above; please excuse my exclamation points. I am happy to find the answer so quickly.

[warrior1]

6. no problem

[Cerridwen]

7. Thank you all for the help. A link with description below.

Gish Gallop

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

The formal debating term for this is spreading. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common.

[RobertEarl]

8. I get hit with that all the time

It's the same as they do to Obama.

Basically people that debate that way are just feeling put upon because they feel ignorant. And then they proceed to show it!

[Cerridwen]

10. It pops up quite a bit.

Another piece I found at the RationalWiki link is:

Argumentum ad tl;dr

A related distraction technique, familiar to readers of A Storehouse of Knowledge, involves swamping an opponent in long-winded screeds of text to artificially inflate the appearance of depth and quality of information presented. Quite often, the actual content of several paragraphs can be summed up in a sentence. While the Gish Gallop floods an opponent with many, but relatively short points, argumentum ad tl;dr flings text walls so massive and impenetrable that even Victor Hugo would blush. Both tactics, however, have exactly the same purpose: to bury and obfuscate the core points that need to be discussed under a quantity of superfluous information. A user might well think that these techniques show that they know what they're talking about, but in the end they act simply as distractions. Note that both are different (but not mutually exclusive) from argumentum ad nauseam, which bolsters the apparent credibility of the argument simply by repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again.

For example, Jason Lisle's blog posts and "research paper" about the anisotropic synchrony convention prattle on endlessly about relativistic physics, hiding the fact that his fundamental assumptions were, to say the least, a little far-fetched. Similarly, engineer Dewey Larson has written numerous books on his theories about matter, going on for pages and pages about the need for critical thinking and letting evidence fit hypotheses, when what he actually proposes in these weighty self-published tomes can be summed up in one sentence.

That also looks very familiar. "Scholars" from aei, heritage foundation, and various other r/w "think tanks," publish many articles using that same form.

[longship]

9. Gish gallop, named after Duane Gish...

Creationist apologist and practiced biology debater.

Duane Gish

I saw him live once at CalPoly. He was incredible, kept his biology professor opponent on his toes. The crowd were mostly bussed in by church busses and cheered Gish on.

It was educational. That's why people should never, ever debate these guys.

[Cerridwen]

11. Yes. That was exactly what I was looking for.

Thank you for helping.

[Brother Buzz]

12. Curious, was this the thread that piqued you interest?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4419938

[Cerridwen]

13. Not that thread or any other specifically.

It's a tactic I've seen used in the "news" and other media outlets; "non-fiction" books by r/wers, various talking head programs as posted here at DU, and the like.

I was happy to see it had a name which makes it somewhat easier to define for others who may not be aware of it.

The thread you linked is a good one however and now that you've reminded me of it I can go read and watch. Thank you.

[countryjake]

14. Good one!

I think I know why you needed to remember the name of that tactic!

[Cerridwen]

15. Thanks, countryjake.

My reply #13 states a bit more about my reason for wanting to find that name.

I see the tactic often these days but I have a difficult time describing it (as you can see in my original OP) so having a name for it will be helpful; as will having a link to a definition that describes it better than I am able.

[Warpy]

16. How Joe Biden Broke The Gish Gallop

How did Biden succeed in neutralizing Paul Ryan when Ryan was making nearly the same case in nearly the same way Mitt Romney did last week? He broke the Gish Gallop.

Named after the creationist Duane Gish, the Gallop is a tactic wherein a debater spews so many lies and half-truths that rebutting each one is impossible. The technique leaves their opponent shaken and unable to make clear arguments.

Biden clearly made the decision that he was going to impede Ryan’s ability to lie confidently. Ryan went at the vice president with distortions on every issue from Iran to abortion. And Biden refused to let any go. He used his facial reactions and interjections to contest the lies, demanded his equal time and tied it all together with his somewhat mocking, Senatorial use of “my friend.” What was key to his strategy is that he actually spent little of his time rebutting facts. Instead he quickly bridged to his own arguments.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/how-joe-biden-broke-the-gish-gallop/

He also laughed at Ryan when he'd go off trying to Gish Gallop his way into some sort of relevance. Laughter is all they deserve when they try this.

[Cerridwen]

18. Perfect. Thank you, Warpy. (edited)

Rebuttal strategy, or perhaps more accurately, a strategy of not rebutting but making the debate "your own" is a good counter-measure to have to hand.

eta: I found this statement the most useful: "What was key to his strategy is that he actually spent little of his time rebutting facts. Instead he quickly bridged to his own arguments."

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. "Argumentum ad tl;dr" ftw

[Cerridwen]

21. I read a particularly heinous example of "Argumentum ad tl;dr" article a few weeks ago.

The author of the article wrote a long anti-feminist screed including link after link after link to other anti-feminist, argumentum ad tl;dr screeds, cited studies in which the researchers' conclusions were either taken out of context, ignored completely, or just made up out of whole cloth.

It would have taken an entire 2000 page book to unpack and dispute the lies presented by the author as well as those others she quoted.

I expect many of her conclusions will be repeated ad nauseum and they will be stated as "fact."

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

Mark Twain, (attributed)
US humorist, novelist, short story author, & wit (1835 - 1910)

[Triana]

19. Recent example - watch M. Bachmann in this video with Bernie Sanders

Gish Gallop Galore:

[Cerridwen]

20. I believe you. I can't watch those videos.

It's dangerous for all my computer equipment as I start wanting to throw things.

When I saw it was wolf blitzer as the talking head, I knew what was coming.

I do appreciate you adding this to the thread. Thank you very much.

[Triana]

22. It would definitely elevate your blood pressure! I wanted SO badly

to slap the yammering idiot. She wouldn't let Bernie Sanders even get a sentence out.

[freshwest]

23. It's been effective politically since it was used by Donald Segretti for Nixon by the GOP:

They gave it the name Ratfucking.

Specifically used as a tool to demoralize Democratic voters by lying or distorting the views, acts or personal lives of their elected officials or candidates. There is no reason for them to stop using this negative spin technique as it pays very well as they take over elected positions and appoint supporters to less accountable positions like courts for longer term control of political entities.

Segretti's last public use of it was for McCain in 2008 but it's never stopped since PBO was elected. The Wikipedia entry is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Segretti

It's why there are coordinated media outrage stories about Obama as the conservative billionaire owners continue to control the message. It's gives it a sense of being a normal reaction to the man and his policies and a depressing sense of inevitability through constant repetition.

There is also the subliminal effect of imagery from the net and other sources to make the viewer feel uncomfortable supporting Obama, liberals or progressives in the midst of the tidal wave of disinformation that they know most people have seen, but don't know how much is believed. It creates an anxiety that negates their ability to debate.

There is no limit to the amount of money corporate shills get for electoral campaigns and media coverage year round. Democrats are for the less wealthy and suffer a financial disadvantage.

After a while, it sinks into the subconscience of voters and more importantly, Democrats, that people believe their party is corrupt, uncaring or ineffective or their ideas unpopular;

That there is little difference between the two parties, when a little fact checking shows there is a huge difference in terms of laws supported or opposed and whose interests the GOP represents in philosophical terms;

That their candidate and thus themselves are regarded as weak, dishonest or somehow morally corrupt, that they can't trust each other, etc.;

Or that the regressives have won, that it's all destiny, so give up.

In the middle of all of this, the competence to actually change things is still there, yet percieved as non-existant, despite manifest proof that they have changed things for the bettter.

Apathy, disenchantment and unwillingness to compromise in our party, or address that some things must be done, or that others will not happen, and constantly degrading our party always works for the GOP so they make sure to present everything in media in that light.

To look at it another way, it is a classic destabilisation technique and it has a profound effect. Here is the Wikipedia entry on this technique, prevalent with ODS:

The word destabilisation can be applied to a wide variety of contexts such as attempts to undermine political, military or economic power. In a psychological context it is used as a technique in brainwashing and abuse to disorient and disarm the victim. For example, in the context of workplace bullying, destabilisation applied to the victim may involve:[1] [2]

* failure to acknowledge good work and value the victim's efforts
* allocation of meaningless tasks
* removal of areas of responsibility without consultation
* repeated reminders of blunders
* setting up to fail
* shifting of goal posts without telling the victim
* persistent attempts to demoralise the victim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destabilisation

Just my humble opinion and my way of stating it.

[Cerridwen]

24. I'd heard of "ratfucking." I did not know its source.

Thanks for adding yet more useful information.

I read the link about segretti at the link you provided. There is an absolute lack of any human qualities on display. Lie, cheat, steal, frame others, ruin reputations, destroy names and careers...

No wonder the repub party sees evil everywhere; they live and breathe it in their own ranks.

Thanks so very much, freshwest. Your post has quite enhanced my little plea for help thread.

[freshwest]

25. Thanks, I edited and added another entry on destabilization. It's hard to see a way out of this.

...There is an absolute lack of any human qualities on display. Lie, cheat, steal, frame others, ruin reputations, destroy names and careers...

No wonder the repub party sees evil everywhere; they live and breathe it in their own ranks.

Your assesssment of their deficits is very well stated. They still embrace the con artists like O'Keefe, and they still cover up for each other on all their actions. They are a scary group, intent on destroying democracy.

[Cerridwen]

26. I read your addition.

PsyOps plain and simple. Psychological manipulation for certain ends not usually meant to be beneficial for the target.

In abuse it's called "crazy-making" or "gas-lighting." It can be applied directly or by proxy; yes, it is possible to abuse/bully someone by proxy. The proxy doesn't even have to know they're being used nor do they necessarily realize what they are doing is abusive toward the target.

The cia and other government alphabet "intelligence" groups have used these tactics quite effectively. cointelpro comes to mind. There are many other OPs names that have come to light though the names of them escape me right now.

As I was reading and writing what kept going through my head is how often "weapons" that are designed/manufactured for use against "the enemy" are frequently turned and used on our own.

A woman I've known for some years was one day providing a couple of us the "derring do" tales of her time learning "intelligence operations" while she was in the Army. At one point she explained how the exercise of her resisting "interrogation" resulted in her being quite good at lying under very harsh conditions. My response was not popular, to say the least. "That's something I want on my resume; I excel at lying even under torture." Please don't misunderstand. I understand our troops need to be prepared for every contingency and horror presented by war. Why the Army spent time training a short-termer on the intricacies of surviving torture during a time of peace for one who was assigned a desk in the US, is beyond me. But then, I don't trust much that comes out of her mouth. she's also an "I got mine; fuck you" type of republican who is now registered Democrat because the repub brand became too obvious in its totalitarian goals.

Yuck. I went off on a tangent. Well, it's tangentially related so I'll leave it.

The only ways I know of fighting this are with critical thinking, being an active (rather than passive) reader and learner, and staying ever vigilant. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees and not everyone cares.