----------------------------
You can almost bank on the fact that when Leftists complain about something the opposition is doing, they are the ones that are doing it. Lying shamelessly is also a patented technique of the Left, where a point is hammered incessantly until it is accepted as gospel truth. Examples? "Citizens United" opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate campaign contributions. Tax increases reduce the national debt. The rich aren't paying their fair share. Christians are intolerant. The list goes on and on...
So here we have a good little leftist promulgating her own "truth," this time as a fact checker against conservatives. Right off we know she's full of it, because her article is headlined with a picture of Bill O'Reilly. Since O'Reilly is not a conservative, well, this only means that she doesn't exactly inspire our confidence. Read on:
-------------------------------
Conservatives have figured out a neat little rhetorical trick: tell lies so fast your opponents can't keep up.
Mark Twain once famously said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Twain wasn’t praising lies with this comment, of course, but modern-day conservatives seem to think he was dishing out advice instead of damning the practice of dishonesty. Conservatives have figured out a neat little rhetorical trick: One lie is easy for your opponents to debunk. Tell one lie after another, however, and your opponent’s debunkings will never catch up. By the time the liberal opposition has debunked one lie, there’s a dozen more to take its place. (As we have noted, Leftists have already got quite a bit of difficulty with the truth. The fact they have difficulty "debunking" conservative "lies" should not surprise us since the truth so often eludes the Left.)
Science educator Eugenie Scott deemed the technique the “Gish Gallop,” named for a notoriously sleazy creationist named Duane Gish. The Urban Dictionary defines the Gish Gallop as a technique that “involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it.” (Again, Leftists are particularly adept at this technique.)
Often users of the Gish Gallop know their arguments are nonsense or made in bad faith, but don’t particularly care because they are so dead set on advancing their agenda. Unfortunately, the strategy is so effective that it’s been expanding rapidly in right-wing circles. Here are just a few of the most disturbing examples of the Gish Gallop in action.
1. Creationism. It’s no surprise creationists inspired the coining of the term Gish Gallop, as they have perfected the art of making up nonsense faster than scientists can refute it. The list of false or irrelevant claims made by creationists, as chronicled by Talk Origins, numbers in the dozens, perhaps even hundreds, and more are always being spun out. Trying to argue with a creationist, therefore, turns into a hellish game of Whack-A-Mole. Debunk the lie that the speed of light is not constant, and you’ll find he’s already arguing that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. Argue that it’s unconstitutional to put the story of Adam and Eve in the science classroom, and find he’s pretending he was never asking for that and instead wants to “teach the controversy.” (Whew. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between the issue of creationism, and what might or might not be constitutional. One is a scientific/philosophical question, the other is a legal question.
Offering opinions, drawing conclusions, or exercising faith are matters apart from lying. We also need to note here that neither link supplied provides evidence for the author's claims. Remember, the claim is that creationists lie and change the subject to other lies when confronted. Documentation, please?)
“Teaching the controversy" is a classic Gish Gallop apology. The conservative (Does the author realize that not all conservatives are creationists, and not all creationists are conservative? In fact, anyone who believes in god or gods is by definition a creationist. The single relevant tenet of creationism is that there is a higher power that caused existence. Beyond that there is a large spectrum of differences and perspectives. As is typical with Leftists, the author lumps it all together in order to paint with a broad brush the eeevils of creationism.)
wants to make it seem like he’s supporting open-minded debate, but instead he just wants an opportunity to dump a bunch of lies on students with the knowledge that they’ll never have the time and attention to carefully parse every debunking. (One other thing to note. How things began is a different subject than evolution. In fact, when you attempt to argue about evolution with a Leftist by pointing out that abiogenesis is problematic, he will attempt to evade the point by suggesting that abiogenesis is not a problem for evolution to solve. So, engaging in her own Gish Gallop, the author subtly changes the subject from creation to evolution and hopes no one notices.)
2. Climate change denialism. This strategy worked so well for creationism it makes perfect sense that it would be imported to the world of climate change denialism. Climate change denialists have many changing excuses for why they reject the science showing that human-caused greenhouse gases are changing the climate, but what all these reasons have in common is they are utter nonsense in service of a predetermined opposition to taking any action to prevent further damage. (Gish Gallop... the reader will not find any conservative who refuses to take "any action.")
Skeptical Science, a website devoted to debunking right-wing lies on this topic, has compiled a dizzying list of 176 common claims by climate denialists and links to why they are false. Some of these lies directly contradict each other. For instance, it can’t both be true that climate change is “natural” and that it’s not happening at all. (That is, some who criticize the Big Climate perpetrators deny climate change is happening. Others deny it is human-caused. The author would need to show that someone holds both positions at once, not that there are a variety of opinions. If people who oppose Big Climate have different reasons for doing so, that does not create a contradiction.
Ms. Marcotte, a contradiction happens when a person says one thing and then another. There is no contradiction when two people have two different reasons.)
No matter, since the point of these lies is not to create a real discussion about the issue, but to confuse the issue so much it’s impossible to get any real momentum behind efforts to stop global warming. (The author wants a real discussion? Whaa? Does the phrase "the science is settled" ring a bell with the author? Or how about, "the debate is over, climate change is a fact?" Does any of this sound like wanting to create a real discussion?)
3. The Affordable Care Act. It’s not just science where conservatives have discovered the value in telling lies so fast you simply wear your opposition out. When it comes to healthcare reform, the lying has been relentless. There are the big lies, such as calling Obamacare “socialism,” which implies a single-payer system, (What is implied has little to do with what is inferred. She asserts a false assumption that it must be single payer to be socialism.
But unfortunately for the author, the supporters of obamacare have regularly called for the implementation of single payer. Therefore, we can appropriately conclude that the steps the process by which single payer is obtained are in themselves socialistic.)
when in fact, it’s about connecting the uninsured with private companies and giving consumers of healthcare a basic set of rights. (Um, wow. Calling obamacare socialism is an opinion, not a "big lie." People have opinions, and it does not make them liars if their opinion is different than yours.
And each time government advances its influence and exerts additional power in the private sector, that is evidence enough for some people that socialism is at work. The author Gish Gallops again. There is no requirement that something be overtly and specifically socialistic. All that is necessary is to demonstrate the incremental increase of government control to properly claim socialism.)
In a sense, even the name “Obamacare” is a lie, as the bill was, per the President’s explicit wishes, written by Congress. (If one googles "Obama's signature healthcare law," you'll get hits like this. Or, it's Obama's "signature achievement." Or for a dose of both at once, check this link. Even Obama himself has used the term, so the author's protestations ring hollow. Everyone calls it obamacare, and Leftist love to give Obama credit. Clearly this has nothing to do with lying.)
But there are also the small lies: The ACA funds abortion. (This link is the Leftist bomb-throwing website mediamatters, which has about as much credibility as a reference as Rush does for the Left. They are not a news site, they are dedicated Leftists advancing a Leftist agenda.
But, if indeed it is true that ACA does not fund abortion, why does the White House oppose this? And what are we to make of this: "...states have to offer at least one health plan on their insurance exchanges that doesn't cover abortion services at all. If a state decides it does want to have health plans that cover abortion services on its exchange, and if a woman chooses one of those plans, then she has to pay a separate fee of at least $1 to a separate account for that coverage in order to make sure no federal dollars are used to support abortion services." Clearly government is entangled, via obamacare, with abortion.)
Under the ACA, old people will be forcibly euthanized. (Another mediamatters link. And, no one is cited as claiming ACA will forcibly euthanize people. Reference, please?)
Obamacare somehow covers undocumented immigrants. (The law, at least at this point, expressly prohibits illegals from obtaining obamacare. But does that mean that illegals won't be obtaining care, especially since there is no requirement in the law to prove you're here legally? And does anyone really believe hospitals are going to turn away sick people?
The only difference post-ACA is the hospital is going to get stuck with the bill. Again, our "fact checker" has some trouble with the facts.)
Congress exempted itself from Obamacare (one of the lies that doesn’t even make sense, as it’s not a program you could really get exempted from). (mediamatters again. In actual fact, congress did functionally exempt itself, because it will not have to bear the burden of the legislation. In other words, what difference does it make what health plan is covering you if you don't have to pay for any of it?)
Healthcare will add a trillion dollars to the deficit. (Ugh, mediamatters. This is hugely complex legislation which has been amended some 40 times and no longer is the same as when it originally passed. We are talking about predictions over the course of a decade, and government predictions are notoriously inaccurate. So any talk about deficit impact is speculative at best. These are OPINIONS about things, which cannot be lies by definition. Some good analysis here.)
The strategy of just lying and lying and lying some more about the ACA has gotten to the point where Fox News is just broadcasting lies accusing the Obama administration of lying. When it was reported that the administration was going to hit its projections for the number of enrollments through healthcare.gov, a subculture of “enrollment truthers” immediately sprang up to spread a variety of often conflicting lies to deny that these numbers are even real. (The author apparently is capable only of researching issues as far as mediamatters. And she has the unmitigated gall to question others about their truthfulness? Really?)
It started soft, with some conservatives suggesting that some enrollments shouldn’t count or arguing, (Finally, another reference source, but this one is just as leftwing as mediamatters. Why does she bother?)
without a shred of evidence, that huge numbers of new enrollees won’t pay their premiums. (Actually, that many have not as of yet paid their premiums. The is well documented.)
Now the lying is blowing up to the shameless level, with “cooking the books” being a common false accusation or, as with Jesse Watters on Fox, straight up accusing the White House of making the number up. Perhaps soon there will be demands to see all these new enrollees’ birth certificates. (So how does she know the administration isn't making numbers up? Isn't interesting that when the administration is challenged, the Left does not consider that the administration may be presenting a less than honest case, but instead immediately attacks the critics?
The author is not fact checking, she's running interference for Obama. She's trying to tamp down criticism of Obama by impugning his detractors. The fact that Obama may be exaggerating the numbers for political gain is not on her radar. So by definition his critics must be lying, because they are questioning the Light-Bringer, and that of course is unconscionable!)
4. Contraception mandate.The ACA-based requirement that insurance plans cover contraception without a copay has generated a Gish Gallop so large it deserves its own category.Jodi Jacobson of RH Reality Check chronicled 12 of the biggest lies generated by the right-wing noise machine in just the past couple of years since the mandate was even announced. It is not “free” birth control, nor is it “paid for” by employers. The birth control coverage is paid for by the employees, with benefits they earn by working. (Um, right. Premiums represent a part of the expense of any coverage. Therefore, we all are paying, via our shared premiums, for all the coverages offered by ACA. Therefore, we are required to participate in the funding of activities we might consider immoral.)
The mandate doesn’t cover “abortifacients,” only contraception. No, birth control doesn’t work by killing fertilized eggs, but by preventing fertilization. It’s simply false that the prescriptions in question can all be replaced with a $9-a-month prescription from Walmart, as many women’s prescriptions run into the hundreds and even thousands a year. No, it’s not true that the contraception mandate is about funding women’s“lifestyle”, because statistics show that having sex for fun instead of procreation is a universal human behavior and not a marginal or unusual behavior as the term “lifestyle” implies.
5. Gun safety. The gun lobby is dishonest to its core. Groups like the NRA like to paint themselves like they are human rights organizations, but in fact, they are an industry lobby whose only real goal is to protect the profit margins of gun manufacturers, regardless of the costs to human health and safety. Because their very existence is based on a lie, is it any surprise that gun industry advocates are experts at the Gish Gallop, ready to spring into action at the sign of any school shooting or report on gun violence and dump so many lies on the public that gun safety advocates can never even begin to address them all?
A small sampling of the many, many lies spouted by gun industry advocates: That guns prevent murder, when in fact more guns correlates strongly with more murders. That gun control doesn’t work. That gun control is unpopular. That any move to make gun ownership safer is a move to take away your guns. That a gun in the home makes you safer when it actually puts your family at more risk. (This is a NYT editorial, not a study or any sort of reference.)
That guns protect against domestic violence, when the truth is that owning a gun makes abuse worse, not better. Even the standard line “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is a distracting bit of dishonesty, since most gun deaths aren’t murders but suicides. (I'm growing weary of dealing with every Leftist trope trotted out here. She cites references and makes assertions that don't follow from the logic. For example, she says that gun control works, yet there is all this gun violence. So if gun control works, why isn't it working?
You can almost bank on the fact that when Leftists complain about something the opposition is doing, they are the ones that are doing it. Lying shamelessly is also a patented technique of the Left, where a point is hammered incessantly until it is accepted as gospel truth. Examples? "Citizens United" opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate campaign contributions. Tax increases reduce the national debt. The rich aren't paying their fair share. Christians are intolerant. The list goes on and on...
So here we have a good little leftist promulgating her own "truth," this time as a fact checker against conservatives. Right off we know she's full of it, because her article is headlined with a picture of Bill O'Reilly. Since O'Reilly is not a conservative, well, this only means that she doesn't exactly inspire our confidence. Read on:
-------------------------------
Conservatives have figured out a neat little rhetorical trick: tell lies so fast your opponents can't keep up.
Mark Twain once famously said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Twain wasn’t praising lies with this comment, of course, but modern-day conservatives seem to think he was dishing out advice instead of damning the practice of dishonesty. Conservatives have figured out a neat little rhetorical trick: One lie is easy for your opponents to debunk. Tell one lie after another, however, and your opponent’s debunkings will never catch up. By the time the liberal opposition has debunked one lie, there’s a dozen more to take its place. (As we have noted, Leftists have already got quite a bit of difficulty with the truth. The fact they have difficulty "debunking" conservative "lies" should not surprise us since the truth so often eludes the Left.)
Science educator Eugenie Scott deemed the technique the “Gish Gallop,” named for a notoriously sleazy creationist named Duane Gish. The Urban Dictionary defines the Gish Gallop as a technique that “involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it.” (Again, Leftists are particularly adept at this technique.)
Often users of the Gish Gallop know their arguments are nonsense or made in bad faith, but don’t particularly care because they are so dead set on advancing their agenda. Unfortunately, the strategy is so effective that it’s been expanding rapidly in right-wing circles. Here are just a few of the most disturbing examples of the Gish Gallop in action.
1. Creationism. It’s no surprise creationists inspired the coining of the term Gish Gallop, as they have perfected the art of making up nonsense faster than scientists can refute it. The list of false or irrelevant claims made by creationists, as chronicled by Talk Origins, numbers in the dozens, perhaps even hundreds, and more are always being spun out. Trying to argue with a creationist, therefore, turns into a hellish game of Whack-A-Mole. Debunk the lie that the speed of light is not constant, and you’ll find he’s already arguing that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. Argue that it’s unconstitutional to put the story of Adam and Eve in the science classroom, and find he’s pretending he was never asking for that and instead wants to “teach the controversy.” (Whew. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between the issue of creationism, and what might or might not be constitutional. One is a scientific/philosophical question, the other is a legal question.
Offering opinions, drawing conclusions, or exercising faith are matters apart from lying. We also need to note here that neither link supplied provides evidence for the author's claims. Remember, the claim is that creationists lie and change the subject to other lies when confronted. Documentation, please?)
“Teaching the controversy" is a classic Gish Gallop apology. The conservative (Does the author realize that not all conservatives are creationists, and not all creationists are conservative? In fact, anyone who believes in god or gods is by definition a creationist. The single relevant tenet of creationism is that there is a higher power that caused existence. Beyond that there is a large spectrum of differences and perspectives. As is typical with Leftists, the author lumps it all together in order to paint with a broad brush the eeevils of creationism.)
wants to make it seem like he’s supporting open-minded debate, but instead he just wants an opportunity to dump a bunch of lies on students with the knowledge that they’ll never have the time and attention to carefully parse every debunking. (One other thing to note. How things began is a different subject than evolution. In fact, when you attempt to argue about evolution with a Leftist by pointing out that abiogenesis is problematic, he will attempt to evade the point by suggesting that abiogenesis is not a problem for evolution to solve. So, engaging in her own Gish Gallop, the author subtly changes the subject from creation to evolution and hopes no one notices.)
2. Climate change denialism. This strategy worked so well for creationism it makes perfect sense that it would be imported to the world of climate change denialism. Climate change denialists have many changing excuses for why they reject the science showing that human-caused greenhouse gases are changing the climate, but what all these reasons have in common is they are utter nonsense in service of a predetermined opposition to taking any action to prevent further damage. (Gish Gallop... the reader will not find any conservative who refuses to take "any action.")
Skeptical Science, a website devoted to debunking right-wing lies on this topic, has compiled a dizzying list of 176 common claims by climate denialists and links to why they are false. Some of these lies directly contradict each other. For instance, it can’t both be true that climate change is “natural” and that it’s not happening at all. (That is, some who criticize the Big Climate perpetrators deny climate change is happening. Others deny it is human-caused. The author would need to show that someone holds both positions at once, not that there are a variety of opinions. If people who oppose Big Climate have different reasons for doing so, that does not create a contradiction.
Ms. Marcotte, a contradiction happens when a person says one thing and then another. There is no contradiction when two people have two different reasons.)
No matter, since the point of these lies is not to create a real discussion about the issue, but to confuse the issue so much it’s impossible to get any real momentum behind efforts to stop global warming. (The author wants a real discussion? Whaa? Does the phrase "the science is settled" ring a bell with the author? Or how about, "the debate is over, climate change is a fact?" Does any of this sound like wanting to create a real discussion?)
3. The Affordable Care Act. It’s not just science where conservatives have discovered the value in telling lies so fast you simply wear your opposition out. When it comes to healthcare reform, the lying has been relentless. There are the big lies, such as calling Obamacare “socialism,” which implies a single-payer system, (What is implied has little to do with what is inferred. She asserts a false assumption that it must be single payer to be socialism.
But unfortunately for the author, the supporters of obamacare have regularly called for the implementation of single payer. Therefore, we can appropriately conclude that the steps the process by which single payer is obtained are in themselves socialistic.)
when in fact, it’s about connecting the uninsured with private companies and giving consumers of healthcare a basic set of rights. (Um, wow. Calling obamacare socialism is an opinion, not a "big lie." People have opinions, and it does not make them liars if their opinion is different than yours.
And each time government advances its influence and exerts additional power in the private sector, that is evidence enough for some people that socialism is at work. The author Gish Gallops again. There is no requirement that something be overtly and specifically socialistic. All that is necessary is to demonstrate the incremental increase of government control to properly claim socialism.)
In a sense, even the name “Obamacare” is a lie, as the bill was, per the President’s explicit wishes, written by Congress. (If one googles "Obama's signature healthcare law," you'll get hits like this. Or, it's Obama's "signature achievement." Or for a dose of both at once, check this link. Even Obama himself has used the term, so the author's protestations ring hollow. Everyone calls it obamacare, and Leftist love to give Obama credit. Clearly this has nothing to do with lying.)
But there are also the small lies: The ACA funds abortion. (This link is the Leftist bomb-throwing website mediamatters, which has about as much credibility as a reference as Rush does for the Left. They are not a news site, they are dedicated Leftists advancing a Leftist agenda.
But, if indeed it is true that ACA does not fund abortion, why does the White House oppose this? And what are we to make of this: "...states have to offer at least one health plan on their insurance exchanges that doesn't cover abortion services at all. If a state decides it does want to have health plans that cover abortion services on its exchange, and if a woman chooses one of those plans, then she has to pay a separate fee of at least $1 to a separate account for that coverage in order to make sure no federal dollars are used to support abortion services." Clearly government is entangled, via obamacare, with abortion.)
Under the ACA, old people will be forcibly euthanized. (Another mediamatters link. And, no one is cited as claiming ACA will forcibly euthanize people. Reference, please?)
Obamacare somehow covers undocumented immigrants. (The law, at least at this point, expressly prohibits illegals from obtaining obamacare. But does that mean that illegals won't be obtaining care, especially since there is no requirement in the law to prove you're here legally? And does anyone really believe hospitals are going to turn away sick people?
The only difference post-ACA is the hospital is going to get stuck with the bill. Again, our "fact checker" has some trouble with the facts.)
Congress exempted itself from Obamacare (one of the lies that doesn’t even make sense, as it’s not a program you could really get exempted from). (mediamatters again. In actual fact, congress did functionally exempt itself, because it will not have to bear the burden of the legislation. In other words, what difference does it make what health plan is covering you if you don't have to pay for any of it?)
Healthcare will add a trillion dollars to the deficit. (Ugh, mediamatters. This is hugely complex legislation which has been amended some 40 times and no longer is the same as when it originally passed. We are talking about predictions over the course of a decade, and government predictions are notoriously inaccurate. So any talk about deficit impact is speculative at best. These are OPINIONS about things, which cannot be lies by definition. Some good analysis here.)
The strategy of just lying and lying and lying some more about the ACA has gotten to the point where Fox News is just broadcasting lies accusing the Obama administration of lying. When it was reported that the administration was going to hit its projections for the number of enrollments through healthcare.gov, a subculture of “enrollment truthers” immediately sprang up to spread a variety of often conflicting lies to deny that these numbers are even real. (The author apparently is capable only of researching issues as far as mediamatters. And she has the unmitigated gall to question others about their truthfulness? Really?)
It started soft, with some conservatives suggesting that some enrollments shouldn’t count or arguing, (Finally, another reference source, but this one is just as leftwing as mediamatters. Why does she bother?)
without a shred of evidence, that huge numbers of new enrollees won’t pay their premiums. (Actually, that many have not as of yet paid their premiums. The is well documented.)
Now the lying is blowing up to the shameless level, with “cooking the books” being a common false accusation or, as with Jesse Watters on Fox, straight up accusing the White House of making the number up. Perhaps soon there will be demands to see all these new enrollees’ birth certificates. (So how does she know the administration isn't making numbers up? Isn't interesting that when the administration is challenged, the Left does not consider that the administration may be presenting a less than honest case, but instead immediately attacks the critics?
The author is not fact checking, she's running interference for Obama. She's trying to tamp down criticism of Obama by impugning his detractors. The fact that Obama may be exaggerating the numbers for political gain is not on her radar. So by definition his critics must be lying, because they are questioning the Light-Bringer, and that of course is unconscionable!)
4. Contraception mandate.The ACA-based requirement that insurance plans cover contraception without a copay has generated a Gish Gallop so large it deserves its own category.Jodi Jacobson of RH Reality Check chronicled 12 of the biggest lies generated by the right-wing noise machine in just the past couple of years since the mandate was even announced. It is not “free” birth control, nor is it “paid for” by employers. The birth control coverage is paid for by the employees, with benefits they earn by working. (Um, right. Premiums represent a part of the expense of any coverage. Therefore, we all are paying, via our shared premiums, for all the coverages offered by ACA. Therefore, we are required to participate in the funding of activities we might consider immoral.)
The mandate doesn’t cover “abortifacients,” only contraception. No, birth control doesn’t work by killing fertilized eggs, but by preventing fertilization. It’s simply false that the prescriptions in question can all be replaced with a $9-a-month prescription from Walmart, as many women’s prescriptions run into the hundreds and even thousands a year. No, it’s not true that the contraception mandate is about funding women’s“lifestyle”, because statistics show that having sex for fun instead of procreation is a universal human behavior and not a marginal or unusual behavior as the term “lifestyle” implies.
5. Gun safety. The gun lobby is dishonest to its core. Groups like the NRA like to paint themselves like they are human rights organizations, but in fact, they are an industry lobby whose only real goal is to protect the profit margins of gun manufacturers, regardless of the costs to human health and safety. Because their very existence is based on a lie, is it any surprise that gun industry advocates are experts at the Gish Gallop, ready to spring into action at the sign of any school shooting or report on gun violence and dump so many lies on the public that gun safety advocates can never even begin to address them all?
A small sampling of the many, many lies spouted by gun industry advocates: That guns prevent murder, when in fact more guns correlates strongly with more murders. That gun control doesn’t work. That gun control is unpopular. That any move to make gun ownership safer is a move to take away your guns. That a gun in the home makes you safer when it actually puts your family at more risk. (This is a NYT editorial, not a study or any sort of reference.)
That guns protect against domestic violence, when the truth is that owning a gun makes abuse worse, not better. Even the standard line “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is a distracting bit of dishonesty, since most gun deaths aren’t murders but suicides. (I'm growing weary of dealing with every Leftist trope trotted out here. She cites references and makes assertions that don't follow from the logic. For example, she says that gun control works, yet there is all this gun violence. So if gun control works, why isn't it working?
And the various assertions she intends to debunk are not the primary arguments of gun rights advocates. Further, no distinction is made between legal and illegal guns, or how they were obtained, or who used them. Since we have to sift through a huge smokescreen just to be able to get to the real questions, her "debunking" is useless.)
How do you fight the Gish Gallop, when trying to debunk each and every lie is so overwhelming? There are a few tactics that help, including creating websites and pamphlets where all the lies can be aggregated in one place, for swift debunking. (Bingo cards and drinking games are a humorous version of this strategy.) A critical strategy is to avoid lengthy Lincoln-Douglas-style debates that allow conservatives to lie-dump rapidly during their speaking period, leaving you so busy trying to clean up their mess you have no time for positive points of your own. Better is a looser style of debate where you can interrupt and correct the lies as they come. I’ve also found some luck with setting an explicit “no lies” rule that will be strictly enforced. The first lie receives a warning, and the second lie means that the debate is immediately terminated. This helps prevent you from having to debunk and instead makes the price of participation a strict adherence to facts. (As we have seen, many of these so-called lies are not lies at all. And the author might want to remember that any sort of "no-lies" policy cuts both ways. As a supposed purveyor of the "truth," she just might find herself to be more than a bit embarrassed to be held to the same standard as she hold others to.)
Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon. She is the author of "It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments."
How do you fight the Gish Gallop, when trying to debunk each and every lie is so overwhelming? There are a few tactics that help, including creating websites and pamphlets where all the lies can be aggregated in one place, for swift debunking. (Bingo cards and drinking games are a humorous version of this strategy.) A critical strategy is to avoid lengthy Lincoln-Douglas-style debates that allow conservatives to lie-dump rapidly during their speaking period, leaving you so busy trying to clean up their mess you have no time for positive points of your own. Better is a looser style of debate where you can interrupt and correct the lies as they come. I’ve also found some luck with setting an explicit “no lies” rule that will be strictly enforced. The first lie receives a warning, and the second lie means that the debate is immediately terminated. This helps prevent you from having to debunk and instead makes the price of participation a strict adherence to facts. (As we have seen, many of these so-called lies are not lies at all. And the author might want to remember that any sort of "no-lies" policy cuts both ways. As a supposed purveyor of the "truth," she just might find herself to be more than a bit embarrassed to be held to the same standard as she hold others to.)
Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon. She is the author of "It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments."
No comments:
Post a Comment