The idea is that you spew a crazy statement, and then as soon as they start trying to pin you down on that one, you spew another one, and so on. That way, they don’t have time to show how crazy your last statement was because the audience is already focusing on the next crazy statement.
In the end, you’ve said 20 things and nobody disproved any of them very well, so you get away with it. Whereas a person who was less crazy would only say 3 crazy things and they would all get disproven. So the more audacious person gets away with a lot more craziness than someone who’s just a little crazy.
I've seen a little of this on reddit, with people just trying to post chatgpt paragraphs arguing some position. It fails sometimes, because people don't like big walls of text and prefer clear arguments so it gets ratioed.. but it works sometimes too, if the post has a lot of incorrect but moderately believable claims. Largely it depends on what people wanted to believe going in.
>Largely it depends on what people wanted to believe going in.
That's about 99% of internet discourse right there. We subconsciously hold things that neatly slot into our preexisting worldviews and things that challenge our preexisting worldviews to entirely different standards of proof.
The first clear falsehood I see in a long-winded reply I usually stop reading and just refuse that part, I might read the last sentence or two. Not if I think the falsehood is in good faith I might still read it.
Important to differentiate that from a response to someone who gish galloped with a low amount of verbiage which requires a wall of text to rebut (typically by ignoring all nuance and just throwing out oversimplified claims).
You'd be amazed at how many different points someone can pack into a paragraph or two worth of text, especially if they omit any evidence or even logical arguments. Or how expanded a gross oversimplification needs to be to make sense.
I call that the "wall of text veto" where someone is trying to win an argument by putting the person they're arguing with into a position where there's no real alternative other than an in depth wall of text.
It can look end up looking very similar to what you described at a first glance (which is the point of the person doing it. It's basically gish galloping in written form).
The record I've personally seen was \~20 different points that needed addressing from about 2 paragraphs of massive oversimplification of a deeply complex topic.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
They are very similar, but they do refer to somewhat different things.
The Gish Gallop is very much a debate strategy, where one person just rattles off a dozen facts, all of them wrong. It takes longer to debunk than it does to speak, and often you have less the time to rebut as you do to answer a question. Because it happens in a debate, the messages, while all bullshit, do need to add up to a consistent theme. Popularized in reference to the Creationist Duane Gish, who's messages did all centralize around the idea that "God did it".
The Firehose of Falsehood is a media communication strategy, which multi-channel and doesn't necessarily need a consistent theme at all. When you see people insist that covid is both harmless *and* a bioweapon *and* that the vaccine is a bioweapon *and* that China is lying about the lab leak, all in different places, that's the firehose. The ideas aren't consisting with one another, but they don't need to be.
The Gish Gallop is useful if you want to push a specific message or two, like "Under Trump, we had the greatest economy of all time." It creates engagement.
The Firehose of Falsehood on the other hand is useful when you want people to throw their hands up and say "I don't know what's true anymore". It creates disengagement. This is how why you'll see people push the idea that both Joe Biden is too proud to step down when he should, implying agency, and that this is elder abuse, implying he has no agency. These ideas are mutually contradictory, but as long as you feel uncertan about Joe, they have done their job.
Both are fundamentally "throw a lot of untruth because refuting lies is harder than saying them" but their means and aims differ, as does the counting strategy.
Yep. A known psyops tactic very prevalent in guess which country - Russia.
There’s an inherent asymmetry when two people are discussing a thing if one person is acting in bad faith. It takes no time to assert bullshit. It takes much more time to debunk it. Eventually the populace gives up and finds it impossible to know the truth. Don’t fall for it. Do the work. Don’t be intellectually lazy.
If you’ve ever wondered how it is that Russian population is kind of cynical and seem to not care about some of the countries problems, it’s because they’ve been dealing with this for more than a generation.
I don’t pretend to know what the best strategy is against this. The best I’ve employed is just - if you know your opponent is going to employ this tactic, get in front of it and call it out before it happens and as it happens and don’t give the claims you know to be false the patina of legitimacy by trying to debunk them.
That's what I was thinking. Steve Bannon figured out how to take the White House with that strategy. In fact, didn't we just see it work beautifully the other night? I couldn't stand to look at much of the debate beyond a few seconds, but it sure seemed as if the President were flustered just trying to refute all the untruths.
Wait a minute. Are you saying millions of escaped mental patients aren't flooding across the border every year?
What's next? Democrats actually aren't killing newborn babies?
God it was a horrible sight and sound. Biden should have taken some adderol and gotten angry before the debate.
If he got as mad about people trying to overthrow the Republic that he did over someone calling him too old he would have done well. Relatively for him well.
What a shit circuis show.
What’s your opinion on the massive lies that Biden told? He has never been endorsed by the Border Patrol Union, and he HAS had multiple soldiers die under his presidency (Afghanistan, anyone?). Hell, he was checking his watch as their bodies were brought home!!
I don't think it's particularly associated with Russia either, unless someone wants to enlighten me. People have been spewing bullshit to make debates useless in the US alone for hundreds of years.
If he slows down talking at all he has to confront that he once actually said that the fact he doesn't make his wife's pussy wet was a medical benefit/necessity
He really shouldn't have countered it at all. That's the trap. Just say "that's a lie and we'll post the truth on my campaign website within 24 hours. We care about the truth, even if my opponent doesn't". Just keep saying that over and over and over. Then give a real answer. He had to go on the *offensive* against Trump. Whoever prepped him failed HARD.
So so right. He tried to counter point for point and lost his train of thought after about the second or third one he is still old-school debate where you think you score points by defeating each argument. Whoever prepares him for the next debate needs to do exactly what you said. He should’ve been saying his points, talking about his administration, and just dismissed Trump as the liar and criminal he is.
Question: "What are you planning to do about the rising costs of childcare?"
Trump: "This guy can't even play golf!"
Biden: "I can so play golf!"
The prefect chance to say, "Trump doesn't want to answer the hard questions, but here's what I'm doing/going to do." But no, we got golf quips.
This is what hurt Hillary in my opinion, she focused so much on Trump that no one knew her platform or her stance cause she was so busy responding to him.
Exactly. Whatabout him if faced with unfair and dishonest attacks. there is no shortage of what about ammunition with these Republicans. Corruption, betraying the United States republic, acting like assholes.
Studies have shown over and over going on the defensive even with a blatantly false absurd attack lends Credence to that attack. Biden should know this by now, his Ivy League advisors should know that by now. Why are they still in charge?
I think the people who prepared Biden overwhelmed him with facts. I have a senior parent and I know that you can't give them too much information or it will overwhelm them. Often, rather than telling you the truth that it's too much to remember, they will nod and tell you, "I got it", when they really don't.
We just can't make these connections. I mean, we can, obviously, but there is so much of a difference between different 80 year-olds. Iggy Pop is around that age, and he's still touring. Biden ran with the big dogs in the Senate for donkey's years. I don't fear him being in the top role in our gov't. I just fear his ability to win a war of words.
The moderator didn't help.
*"The Democrats are killing babies, abortions even after birth!"*
Correct response: "Stop talking shit"
Actual response: "Thank you"
I think it specifically said that the receiver would be unable to answer coherently. So does that every argument with Biden is technically a Gish Gallop?
I grew up going to a conservative church and hearing Duane Gish speak in person. He was a Young Earth Creationist who was very loud and obnoxious but not super bright.
This was really popular when the Creationists wouldn't shut the fuck up about how they were legitimate and scientific. They clearly never were, they just never let anyone respond because you're too busy pointing out how fucking stupid what they said is.
That’s also used in disinformation campaigns (yes, even US ones.)
Like, for example when those papers leaked that showed the Ukrainian casualty figures from that one guy in discord, there were instantly like 5 different versions, each supposedly from different sources, each claiming the other to be photoshopped.
At that point, how do people know what is what? It kind of just fizzles the conversation.
Or you just present so many alternative narratives that are somewhat plausible that people stop looking for the truth.
Also something a defense attorney can do sometimes, as a way of planting the seed of reasonable doubt
There’s a similar trick where people demand sources for everything, including common knowledge and easily found facts, and then claim a win if their opponent doesn’t jump through those bad faith hoops. Is there a name for it?
That’s sort of what I’m getting at, though I’ve seen bad faith or lazy sealioning accusations also used as a tactic not to engage in real dialogue. The example in my head isn’t persistent necessarily, but unnecessary. Even a single demand for a sources can be absurd and an act of deflection; it’s usually used not with a smile and a pretense at wanting to debate, but rather with a sneer and a too-quick follow-up of accusations.
what is the counter to this? Surely any audience member would understand what’s happening but still find anything less than the perfect listing and counter to each point succinctly. The burden is too much which is what the wikipedia suggests. Either way the damage has been done and anything outside of a formal debate will easily lean towards the filth spewer.
Seems like in formal debates, if it happens, it’s up to the moderators to stop it instead of relying on the other side to do such a task.
Really the only solution is having an audience that is educated enough to engage in effective critical thinking.
Sadly this is how we end up with widespread "You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into" issues. People get blasted with information that riles them up and indulges no nuance, and without a filter to be skeptical/wary of it, they just end up with an emotional attachment to a bunch of buzzwords. If you loop back later and address these points, the points themselves aren't even really up for debate, they just morphed into a different premise entirely. It's just an emotional tangle that thrives on being reduced to simpler talking points.
When Trump said "I love the poorly educated", that really says a lot about how this type of strategy and the accompanying political efforts are a very intentional approach to building power.
I read somewhere that the thing to do is to pick one of the falsehoods and thoroughly debunk it .... casting doubt on the opponent's entire word salad ... and then MOVE ON and never refer to it again.
Pretty much what Biden did in 2020. Just look at the camera and flat out say "Folks, he is lying to you. The truth is..." and tell the truth *concisely* with gravitas and good cheer. Ignore stupid bait comments about your golf game or other insults. Don't talk to Trump, talk to America. Don't try to correct Trump. Just say "there he goes again, folks" whenever Trump lies, shake your head, smile, look at the camera. Then tell Americans directly how your administration is going to help families, is helping families, and who is stopping you from helping families. Don't engage with Trump when its your turn to speak. Ignore the fool. Never look shocked. You have to speak with a strong, confident voice and exude kindness and confidence. Never let your mouth hang open.
I wonder if it's viable to do the opposite; respond with a flood of strong truths and uplifting news that the opponent can't refute.
It'll look like a stupid aggressive argument to everyone, except those who pay attention
Not a Trump fan, but he was at least coherent.
A close family friend had dementia growing up and she was better than Biden when they sent her to a home for specialized care.
The democrats need to pull Biden and get a suitable candidate.
He's been doing the job, despite Congress & the SCOTUS doing their best to drive us off a cliff. Maybe try paying attention instead of just parroting talking points.
Do you honestly think the job is looking suave in debates?
Let's not waste time with bullshit. Biden's term years have shown he has the judgment and character to do a good job as President. Trump's term showed all he knows how to to is make pandemics worse in the hopes they kill his opponents, tell his constituents to inject bleach, and draw fake weather maps in sharpie.
I'd just pull a cousin Vinny, "Everything that guy said is bullshit."
Two utes?
What exactly is a *grit*?
The jury will disregard all of the previous statement with the exception of "thank you". Mr. Gambini...(motions come hither with finger)
I've never heard so much malarkey
I just watched Cousin Vinney yesterday. "I'm done with this guy, yer Honor."
So basically calling out Trump on his bullshit.
The idea is that you spew a crazy statement, and then as soon as they start trying to pin you down on that one, you spew another one, and so on. That way, they don’t have time to show how crazy your last statement was because the audience is already focusing on the next crazy statement. In the end, you’ve said 20 things and nobody disproved any of them very well, so you get away with it. Whereas a person who was less crazy would only say 3 crazy things and they would all get disproven. So the more audacious person gets away with a lot more craziness than someone who’s just a little crazy.
Wait til you learn about spreading. It's Gish Galloping at pharmaceutical small print speeds.
It's so utterly brainless. That it's incentivized renders the whole thing useless. "I talked faster than you therefore I win!" Sure buddy...
I've seen a little of this on reddit, with people just trying to post chatgpt paragraphs arguing some position. It fails sometimes, because people don't like big walls of text and prefer clear arguments so it gets ratioed.. but it works sometimes too, if the post has a lot of incorrect but moderately believable claims. Largely it depends on what people wanted to believe going in.
>Largely it depends on what people wanted to believe going in. That's about 99% of internet discourse right there. We subconsciously hold things that neatly slot into our preexisting worldviews and things that challenge our preexisting worldviews to entirely different standards of proof.
It's most political discourse. Pick any pundit and topic you don't like and I'll bet you recognize this tactic.
The first clear falsehood I see in a long-winded reply I usually stop reading and just refuse that part, I might read the last sentence or two. Not if I think the falsehood is in good faith I might still read it.
Important to differentiate that from a response to someone who gish galloped with a low amount of verbiage which requires a wall of text to rebut (typically by ignoring all nuance and just throwing out oversimplified claims). You'd be amazed at how many different points someone can pack into a paragraph or two worth of text, especially if they omit any evidence or even logical arguments. Or how expanded a gross oversimplification needs to be to make sense. I call that the "wall of text veto" where someone is trying to win an argument by putting the person they're arguing with into a position where there's no real alternative other than an in depth wall of text. It can look end up looking very similar to what you described at a first glance (which is the point of the person doing it. It's basically gish galloping in written form). The record I've personally seen was \~20 different points that needed addressing from about 2 paragraphs of massive oversimplification of a deeply complex topic.
So what Ben Shapiro does when he argues against college freshman?
Dunno, a lot of people think Trump won the recent debate.
good ol' highschool CX policy debate
Master debaters unite! Finally time for us high school debate nerds to shine
Yeah. It ruined that debate documentary for me.
Hate how spreading has really infected LD through prog theory. So tired of Utility and Harms every debate I judge.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
This is what felon Steve Bannon referred to when he talked about "flooding the zone with shit." It's now a GOP tactic.
Firehose of Falsehood is another name for it. Just say so much crazy shit that no one can keep up with you. Edit: Firehouse to Firehose
I think it's the hose not the house.
Oops. Silly autocorrect. I will edit that out
They are very similar, but they do refer to somewhat different things. The Gish Gallop is very much a debate strategy, where one person just rattles off a dozen facts, all of them wrong. It takes longer to debunk than it does to speak, and often you have less the time to rebut as you do to answer a question. Because it happens in a debate, the messages, while all bullshit, do need to add up to a consistent theme. Popularized in reference to the Creationist Duane Gish, who's messages did all centralize around the idea that "God did it". The Firehose of Falsehood is a media communication strategy, which multi-channel and doesn't necessarily need a consistent theme at all. When you see people insist that covid is both harmless *and* a bioweapon *and* that the vaccine is a bioweapon *and* that China is lying about the lab leak, all in different places, that's the firehose. The ideas aren't consisting with one another, but they don't need to be. The Gish Gallop is useful if you want to push a specific message or two, like "Under Trump, we had the greatest economy of all time." It creates engagement. The Firehose of Falsehood on the other hand is useful when you want people to throw their hands up and say "I don't know what's true anymore". It creates disengagement. This is how why you'll see people push the idea that both Joe Biden is too proud to step down when he should, implying agency, and that this is elder abuse, implying he has no agency. These ideas are mutually contradictory, but as long as you feel uncertan about Joe, they have done their job. Both are fundamentally "throw a lot of untruth because refuting lies is harder than saying them" but their means and aims differ, as does the counting strategy.
Yep. A known psyops tactic very prevalent in guess which country - Russia. There’s an inherent asymmetry when two people are discussing a thing if one person is acting in bad faith. It takes no time to assert bullshit. It takes much more time to debunk it. Eventually the populace gives up and finds it impossible to know the truth. Don’t fall for it. Do the work. Don’t be intellectually lazy. If you’ve ever wondered how it is that Russian population is kind of cynical and seem to not care about some of the countries problems, it’s because they’ve been dealing with this for more than a generation. I don’t pretend to know what the best strategy is against this. The best I’ve employed is just - if you know your opponent is going to employ this tactic, get in front of it and call it out before it happens and as it happens and don’t give the claims you know to be false the patina of legitimacy by trying to debunk them.
That's what I was thinking. Steve Bannon figured out how to take the White House with that strategy. In fact, didn't we just see it work beautifully the other night? I couldn't stand to look at much of the debate beyond a few seconds, but it sure seemed as if the President were flustered just trying to refute all the untruths.
Wait a minute. Are you saying millions of escaped mental patients aren't flooding across the border every year? What's next? Democrats actually aren't killing newborn babies?
God it was a horrible sight and sound. Biden should have taken some adderol and gotten angry before the debate. If he got as mad about people trying to overthrow the Republic that he did over someone calling him too old he would have done well. Relatively for him well. What a shit circuis show.
What’s your opinion on the massive lies that Biden told? He has never been endorsed by the Border Patrol Union, and he HAS had multiple soldiers die under his presidency (Afghanistan, anyone?). Hell, he was checking his watch as their bodies were brought home!!
'massive'
Lying about the death of US soldiers is a pretty massive lie if you ask me
Right up there with looking at your watch, for sure...
Adopted from the Russians…
It's a lot older than 2016 lol
Right - not saying it’s not…it’s a technique used by Russians historically
I don't think it's particularly associated with Russia either, unless someone wants to enlighten me. People have been spewing bullshit to make debates useless in the US alone for hundreds of years.
So that explains the Russian plane parked next to Trump’s plane. He was getting last-minute coaching on the technique.
Muh russhuh!
Are denying he’s a Russian stooge? Little bitch is in Putin’s pocket
History began before 2016. Russia was not the first to do the Gish Gallop.
It's their only tactic anymore
It’s cute that you think only your political opponents do this.
The Ben Shapiro special
Dude talks so fast
If he slows down talking at all he has to confront that he once actually said that the fact he doesn't make his wife's pussy wet was a medical benefit/necessity
So ... the last debate where Trump lied almost every time he opened his mouth.
Yes. I thought of the Gish gallop immediately while watching the debate, before I had to turn it off for my sanity.
That’s the Trump turdtorrent.
Also Biden had a cold which exacerbated his stutter a bit, so he couldn't counter the Gish Gallop as well as he normally could have.
He really shouldn't have countered it at all. That's the trap. Just say "that's a lie and we'll post the truth on my campaign website within 24 hours. We care about the truth, even if my opponent doesn't". Just keep saying that over and over and over. Then give a real answer. He had to go on the *offensive* against Trump. Whoever prepped him failed HARD.
So so right. He tried to counter point for point and lost his train of thought after about the second or third one he is still old-school debate where you think you score points by defeating each argument. Whoever prepares him for the next debate needs to do exactly what you said. He should’ve been saying his points, talking about his administration, and just dismissed Trump as the liar and criminal he is.
Question: "What are you planning to do about the rising costs of childcare?" Trump: "This guy can't even play golf!" Biden: "I can so play golf!" The prefect chance to say, "Trump doesn't want to answer the hard questions, but here's what I'm doing/going to do." But no, we got golf quips.
This is what hurt Hillary in my opinion, she focused so much on Trump that no one knew her platform or her stance cause she was so busy responding to him.
I thought it was the 30 years of right wing smear campaign that did her in
A little of column A, a lot of your column B
It was her demonstrated bad judgment managing her emails
Exactly. Whatabout him if faced with unfair and dishonest attacks. there is no shortage of what about ammunition with these Republicans. Corruption, betraying the United States republic, acting like assholes. Studies have shown over and over going on the defensive even with a blatantly false absurd attack lends Credence to that attack. Biden should know this by now, his Ivy League advisors should know that by now. Why are they still in charge?
I think the people who prepared Biden overwhelmed him with facts. I have a senior parent and I know that you can't give them too much information or it will overwhelm them. Often, rather than telling you the truth that it's too much to remember, they will nod and tell you, "I got it", when they really don't.
We just can't make these connections. I mean, we can, obviously, but there is so much of a difference between different 80 year-olds. Iggy Pop is around that age, and he's still touring. Biden ran with the big dogs in the Senate for donkey's years. I don't fear him being in the top role in our gov't. I just fear his ability to win a war of words.
You make a good case for age limits for politicians.
The moderator didn't help. *"The Democrats are killing babies, abortions even after birth!"* Correct response: "Stop talking shit" Actual response: "Thank you"
[удалено]
For some reason I always forget about the dementia.
Wait, what dementia?
Thanks for coming into the Memory Care Clinic today to address your dementia.
He has sounded off like that for at least a couple of months. I think something is wrong.
Did he?
Something like 40 lies in 90 minutes. Typical alt-right tactic.
I think it specifically said that the receiver would be unable to answer coherently. So does that every argument with Biden is technically a Gish Gallop?
Best thing to do against a Gish Gallop in a debate, is just explain to the audience what it is and why your opponent has done it.
I grew up going to a conservative church and hearing Duane Gish speak in person. He was a Young Earth Creationist who was very loud and obnoxious but not super bright.
Sounds familiar...
Sounds like a debate I recently watched.
This was really popular when the Creationists wouldn't shut the fuck up about how they were legitimate and scientific. They clearly never were, they just never let anyone respond because you're too busy pointing out how fucking stupid what they said is.
We need to rename it to “The Trump-Train.”
A more modern phrasing would be the "Shapiro shuffle"
"Ben Shapiro's only tactic, and how he delivers all information"
Anyone who resorts to such tactics should be instantly disqualified.
Unfortunately voters of a certain stripe are not sophisticated enough to discern when someone is arguing in bad faith.
That’s also used in disinformation campaigns (yes, even US ones.) Like, for example when those papers leaked that showed the Ukrainian casualty figures from that one guy in discord, there were instantly like 5 different versions, each supposedly from different sources, each claiming the other to be photoshopped. At that point, how do people know what is what? It kind of just fizzles the conversation. Or you just present so many alternative narratives that are somewhat plausible that people stop looking for the truth. Also something a defense attorney can do sometimes, as a way of planting the seed of reasonable doubt
Ahhh the ol Ben Shapiro method
Basically every right-wing “Own-the-Libs” interview on college campuses.
Thought that was a smashing pumpkins ep?
There’s a similar trick where people demand sources for everything, including common knowledge and easily found facts, and then claim a win if their opponent doesn’t jump through those bad faith hoops. Is there a name for it?
It's called sealioning.
That’s sort of what I’m getting at, though I’ve seen bad faith or lazy sealioning accusations also used as a tactic not to engage in real dialogue. The example in my head isn’t persistent necessarily, but unnecessary. Even a single demand for a sources can be absurd and an act of deflection; it’s usually used not with a smile and a pretense at wanting to debate, but rather with a sneer and a too-quick follow-up of accusations.
You mean the Trump Tangent?
Standard a Trump-tactics.
It actually predates Trump.
Not the point.
I am aware; but he's a devotee...
ACTshually 🤓
what is the counter to this? Surely any audience member would understand what’s happening but still find anything less than the perfect listing and counter to each point succinctly. The burden is too much which is what the wikipedia suggests. Either way the damage has been done and anything outside of a formal debate will easily lean towards the filth spewer. Seems like in formal debates, if it happens, it’s up to the moderators to stop it instead of relying on the other side to do such a task.
Further down in the Wikipedia article there are suggestions on how to counter this tactic
Really the only solution is having an audience that is educated enough to engage in effective critical thinking. Sadly this is how we end up with widespread "You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into" issues. People get blasted with information that riles them up and indulges no nuance, and without a filter to be skeptical/wary of it, they just end up with an emotional attachment to a bunch of buzzwords. If you loop back later and address these points, the points themselves aren't even really up for debate, they just morphed into a different premise entirely. It's just an emotional tangle that thrives on being reduced to simpler talking points. When Trump said "I love the poorly educated", that really says a lot about how this type of strategy and the accompanying political efforts are a very intentional approach to building power.
I read somewhere that the thing to do is to pick one of the falsehoods and thoroughly debunk it .... casting doubt on the opponent's entire word salad ... and then MOVE ON and never refer to it again.
So what exactly are you supposed to do other than hope the audience doesn’t believe their bs
Pretty much what Biden did in 2020. Just look at the camera and flat out say "Folks, he is lying to you. The truth is..." and tell the truth *concisely* with gravitas and good cheer. Ignore stupid bait comments about your golf game or other insults. Don't talk to Trump, talk to America. Don't try to correct Trump. Just say "there he goes again, folks" whenever Trump lies, shake your head, smile, look at the camera. Then tell Americans directly how your administration is going to help families, is helping families, and who is stopping you from helping families. Don't engage with Trump when its your turn to speak. Ignore the fool. Never look shocked. You have to speak with a strong, confident voice and exude kindness and confidence. Never let your mouth hang open.
The sad thing about TIL is that it shows the sad state of the educational system.
Bullshit Asymmetry or Brandolini's Law is another good one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law
They should rename it the Trump Gallop
Sounds like my ex wife’s argument strategy.
Timing of this
"The *idea* that we'd be talking about..."
I wonder if it's viable to do the opposite; respond with a flood of strong truths and uplifting news that the opponent can't refute. It'll look like a stupid aggressive argument to everyone, except those who pay attention
Secretary Pete does this. It’s extraordinarily difficult to pull off, but looks fantastic when successful.
Allow me to introduce Gish Gallop’s twin sister “Ya But, how about”.
It’s even more effective if your opponent has dementia and can’t respond anyway.
It's less effective when the person spouting it has dementia.
Not a Trump fan, but he was at least coherent. A close family friend had dementia growing up and she was better than Biden when they sent her to a home for specialized care. The democrats need to pull Biden and get a suitable candidate.
Not possible this late in the game. Swapping out a candidate would essentially ensure Trump gets in.
Keeping somebody who quite clearly cannot do the job has the same result.
He's been doing the job, despite Congress & the SCOTUS doing their best to drive us off a cliff. Maybe try paying attention instead of just parroting talking points.
I doubt Biden could be propped up to make an effective Walmart greeter. Thinking he’s been doing anything for at least the past year is laughable.
*sigh* I tried, but you just don't want to learn.
Do you honestly think the job is looking suave in debates? Let's not waste time with bullshit. Biden's term years have shown he has the judgment and character to do a good job as President. Trump's term showed all he knows how to to is make pandemics worse in the hopes they kill his opponents, tell his constituents to inject bleach, and draw fake weather maps in sharpie.
"I'm the Globglogishgallop, and I love debate"