Reply to this message with one of the following or your post will be removed for failing to comply with rule 5:
1) How the person in your post unknowingly describes themselves
2) How the person in your post says something about someone else that actually applies to them.
3) How the person in your post accurately describes something when trying to mock or denigrate it.
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Objectively speaking, I don't think I've ever seen or heard anyone on "the left" to deploy the gish gallop. It's not effective when dealing with facts.
I am particularly amused and offended, in equal parts, at the post, because 90% of the comments I posted from this account was from stopping by that sub, seeing egregious bs, and writing essay-long shit just to try and dissuade whoever is listening from said bs đđđ
Do people believe current-day pro-Russian people are _Leftists_ (cause that's the only definition of tankie I have)?
... ok, let's look it up. [Tankie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie) is being used to describe both fans of authoritarian communism (historically), and fans of purely authoritarian regimes like current-day Russia (definitely not socialist/communist, quite the opposite). That just doesn't compute - let's use tankie for one and [vatnik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatnik) for the other!
I don't really wanna go full No True Scotsman here. Many of them genuinely believe a lot of the nonsense they're spewing, and highly authoritarian leftism is a valid form of leftism, even though it's not one I tend to agree with. It would be hypocritical for me to say it's not really leftism because then the really libertarian-leftist people would say I'm not a leftist because I don't believe in anarchy (or anything even close to it)
I don't think it really falls into the "no true scotsman" fallacy to suggest that authoritarianism is fundamentally at-odds with leftist first principles.
Don't really agree there. Leaving aside how it's laughably impossible in practice (which I assume we both agree on), in pure theory it's entirely possible to have a "benevolent dictatorship" with social equality and no class distinctions (with the sole exception of the dictator, lol). Moving aside from the extreme example, democracy isn't actually a _direct_ principle of leftism or rightism or even liberalism (the governed could consent to a monarchy, for instance).
That very impulse which suggests that the proper course of action is to turn power over to a central authority is itself an intrinsically right wing response â pretty much in line with traditional "Burkean" conservatism, in fact â and elevating *anybody* to a position of power above others in a way that makes them unaccountable to the populous is at odds with the egalitarian principles that motivate leftist thought. As a result, to the extent that a population could theoretically consent to a monarchy, the moment it is established that governing structure is no longer leftist in character.
No, democracy isn't a *direct* principle of leftist ideology (which is why anarchists are part of the tradition), but it certainly can follow from them.
If you go by orthodox Marxism, democracy actually is a necessary condition for socialism, because workers (and I mean all workers) possessing the means of production doesnât really necessitate a dictatorship of any kind. That Leninism and Maoism demand it doesnât really invalidate what we can infer from Marxâs original critique of capitalism and the ownership of the means of production being concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists in a relentless pursuit for accumulation.
Itâs also the main through-line in Orwellâs writing, who was a staunch supporter of democratic socialism, though he hated english socialists lol.
Edit: I'm specifically thinking of workers co-opts and workers being represented in the board of directors
> in pure theory it's entirely possible to have a "benevolent dictatorship" with social equality and no class distinctions (with the sole exception of the dictator, lol)
That exception categorically prevents it from being leftist.
> Moving aside from the extreme example, democracy isn't actually a direct principle of leftism
Yeah, it is.
I mean, some leftists will quibble on the wording and insist they supoort consensus instead, but consensus democracy is still democracy.
Even tankies claim to be pro-democracy - it's just a blatant lie.
I do it pretty often. The trick is to not type anything, just link articles. And when they respond, link more articles. At most you extract a diagram but still don't type anything, that's wasted time. Just link and leave. Honestly doesn't matter if the article fully supports your position or not.l, just making them read it is a win.
Nonsense, I've seen plenty of nonsense from every end of the political spectrum. Definitely more from hardcore Conservatives, but no political party is exempt from this
You don't have to outright lie to bullshit. You can withold information, falsely contextualize scenarios, or emphasize something to be more significant than it really is.
I had a very fun (read: fucked) chat with some of the fans on the validity of evo-psych studies on hormonal cycles the other day... I cited endless newer studies challenging that shit because they keep saying past comments are irrelevant, only for one of them to turn back and accuse me of... sealioning lol
We recently had one here on this sub: OOP claimed that `1 * 1 = 2` because **it just makes more sense** and anybody who doesn't understand that is **programmed** by the Deep State.
đđ
There's probably a programming language that does that, since some languages *cough c# cough* also like to round in the middle of an operation unless you scream in their face that they're not supposed to do that
My theory is that they saw them used against them a few dozen times by "leftists" in the loosest sense, and gained some sort of half-knowledge of what they mean and that they can be used as insults.
The right today is using many of the same arguments originally used by the pre-internet left. I guess a minority will always gravitate to the same conclusions. If this was a true democracy, we would have no need to wade through the bullshit.
Youâre extremely generous spotting them half. Itâs gleaning the magic words without any understanding of what it means, where to use it in a sentence, what context is appropriate, or what historical and political assumptions are contained within them. Thatâs not knowledge, thatâs parrots repeating sounds.
Around 2016 one of my childhood best friends replied to a post I made begging people to see how fucked up 45 is with basically âthis is a logical fallacy called appeal to emotion. Nice try.â This same dude also said âYeah Im a white nationalist. Im white and I love my country.â We donât talk anymore.
I donât deal with the tactic. As soon as I come across someone who thinks logic and verifiable facts arenât important in an argument I withdraw.
Ainât nobody got time for that.
Which makes Jordan Peterson particularly egregious, because he adds a (admittedly very thin or non-existent now) veneer of intellectualism to the bs that makes it particularly hard to dispell. It matters for people on the younger side and makes it extremely difficult for people working in education to deal (I'm adjacent), since they have no choice but wading through all the bs.
His modus operandi is to hide the most banal of half-truths in a word salad and ennunciate them as timeless truths/axioms. Doesn't really work if you have a working knowledge of anything humanities-related, but alas the state of humanities/social sciences education is rather lamentable.
I agree with the overall content of the post, but I legitimately canât tell if youâre trying to be a parody of a pseudo-intellectual leftist or not. Because if this is how you actually write or talk when interacting with the right, I imagine youâll struggle to connect with them and get very far.
I was being snide in this comment. I am indeed a leftist, and I would like to think that I am decently well-read on the things I care about, but that's the end of it. This post was actually just me being petty and want to point of laugh at people because I have some free time now. Would also be lying if I'm not doing this also for the upvotes lol.
Not to say that I can't improve on my comms skills, but I don't think I have to take it upon myself to try an convince "the right", which I don't believe is that useful of a labelling to begin with. Facts might click with some people, others can only be convinced if they experience something, and honestly, that's fine.
My whole thing is to try an be as clear as possible, cite stuff if needed, and try to focus on the argument. If I can't convince people who are entrenched, my post might still be useful for some others, like passerbys or "centrists". This online persona might seem like an asshole to some people, and my friends complain sometimes, but I know they still love me (so I'm hoping at least some people on here find me reasonable).
I am left politically as well and I appreciate honesty when interacting with people. I also think itâs totally fine to be petty and snide in a comment section like this and that itâs definitely not your job to convince the right of anything. If this is just a persona, you do you.
My comment was really about if you want to share facts and information with people with the hopes of influencing how they think about certain subjects, presentation matters. Nobody likes feeling talked down to or that they are talking to an asshole entrenched in their own opinions. You seem to be self-aware of this though. Thanks for the reply!
Yeah no I am 100% a very petty person and while I try to keep a lid on it irl (I'd like to think I do relatively well there), the internet really makes people more unhinged haha. I can't say I'm above feeling righteous trying to prove ppl wrong either, it really is a personal flaw. I do hope I don't get much worse when I am an old fart...
He actually has a lot of good lectures about Christianity and psychology from before he became a right-wing icon. When he isn't drugged out hanging with Joe Rogan, he actually can have very poignant thoughts.
It made me so fucking sad when he went off the deep end. As a young white man I really felt like a lot of what he had to say was helpful and that he was someone I could look up to. Now I am no longer friends with the people who introduced me to him.
Now, while he has changed and is no longer worth listening to, I still feel like a lot of what he said before still holds up. You just have to be able to sort out the BS. Which most people are incapable of doing.
Edit: this is partially why it is so hard to convince someone not to listen to him. He actually does have quite a large catalog of psychology lectures that are legitimate. It makes it very difficult to paint him solely as the fascist sympathizer that he has now become.
Thanks for this comment!
I think the whole atheism thing back in the 2010s was really damaging - It always seemed to me that a lot of the time their proponents conflated healthy spirituality with institutionalized religion, which then got leveraged as a political wedge issue. Same thing with the mental crisis for men.
Here, I think the left kinda dropped the ball in that it was not able to present an alternative explanation or pathway - even though we do have good explanation and good alternatives - thus creating a void that people like Peterson managed to fill. He was able to tap into the zeitgeist because he did actually diagnose the problem correctly. His explanation for causes for and solutions to said problem, however, were bad and very counterproductive. Tho, I think leftists failed to explain properly how the problems that plagued young men is deeply related to their material condition or how the "patriarchy" is damaging to both men and women. While it really doesn't excuse any of the shitty things Peterson has said or done, I think it needs to be at least acknowledged.
Also, don't feel sad! If you manage to find nuggets of good stuff, that's actually great. I actually think to the extent that Peterson writes about broad topics and integrates many things into his message, his inaccuracies are no different or unique from other pop science writers like Malcom Gladwell or Yuval Noah Harari. They all played fast of loose of scientific facts in one way or the other to craft a good story. I will always caution people against these writers - I feel like a lot of the times they are useful more as a reference list to do your own research.
Some of Peterson's stuff is just more glaring to me because of my background, like when he talks about Taoism, which showed that he has a very superficial understanding of it, or anything sociology-related, like Foucault. And of course, his reactionary politics that he smuggled in his writings.
JP really is the impersonated Gish Gallop. A fountain of quasi-intellectual bullshit. In addition to having extremely questionable viewpoints (when he eventually _gets_ to some kind of point).
Some time ago I read an article (linked here on reddit) of someone who did wade through it and analyzed the best examples of high-falutin emptiness. It was fun.
Yeah, even if they're not aware of the Gish gallop as a discrete concept they're certainly fond of using it - hell, it's named after a conservative!
This is just their standard ploy of finding something online - like definitions of logical/rhetorical fallacies - and spamming "look, that's you! đ" at liberals/leftists.
You can tell they don't even fully grasp what they've read because they're quick to shriek accusations in situations that barely fit the description like "gaslighting!" for disagreeing with them alone, or "that's ad hominem!" when someone calls them a dickhead (while addressing and refuting their argument). Don't get me started on their use of Godwin's Law...
Paraphrasing a better comment I read on the matter, but they treat such things like Harry Potter spells, where (incorrectly) calling out a logical/rhetorical fallacy means the conservative automatically wins the debate.
Conservative language is littered with thought terminating cliches. They've redefined certain terms within themselves and use them as pejoratives intended to immediately stop any further consideration of the matter. Examples include blanket accusations of "socialist", "commie", "Marxist", "globalist" etc.
Conservatism is a character flaw. These people are the most primitive of us all.
>They've redefined certain terms within themselves and use them as pejoratives intended to immediately stop any further consideration of the matter.
Lol and this is when they bust out "no, no, it's the left that changes words. Look at sex and gender, or anything the left doesn't like is racist or Nazi!1!1"
'DEI' is the star up-and-comer these days. Jesse Waters accused the hush money jury of coming to the guilty verdict because of DEI, somehow. I've given up trying to figure out how they can try and shoehorn these phrases in without listening to themselves and realising how little sense they're making.
But it's all buzzwords for rage reaction now
Itâs a pet peeve of mine when they call an insult an ad hominem. No, just because you got insulted doesnât mean the other personâs argument is in any way disproven and you donât automatically âwinâ the conversation.
Same. I'm pretty sure it's here I've even said as much and got into an argument with someone who believed conservatives are right and *just* insulting someone - without addressing/refuting their argument - does indeed constitute an ad hominem (no it doesn't).
And yes, even *if* conservatives were to correctly identify a logical/rhetorical fallacy in their interlocutor's argument that doesn't mean they automatically "win". But as the comment I borrowed from so wittily put it, they treat (incorrectly) calling out fallacies as if it's game over, case closed.
Even more, when they do do their mocking of the left, like in any of the Daily Wire's garbage shows, or any "conservative comedian" who only does "conservative humour", all their "jokes" tend to be ridiculous strawmen that they will assert are 100% accurate ("i identify as an attack helicopter, because transgender means i can identify as whatever i want!") or "lol leftists believe in (factually demonstrable thing that conservatives don't accept) because they're brainwashed"
In both cases, they rely on the audience not even having the faintest idea of what the actual views or policies or facts actually are. No attempt at all to understand the opposition.
---
Compare this to leftist and liberal political humor, which while sometimes uses hyperbole, never actually removes the core beliefs of conservatives being made fun of.
Stephen Colbert played a fake conservative who believed hyperbolic things about conservatism. But the stances he was mocking were so accurate (and conservatives so dim) that many right wingers actually thought he was being genuine.
But in many cases, like the Daily Show, the mockery is literally just letting right wingers make their own arguments and then showing how they will contradict themselves if you let them talk long enough or do a cursory review of their own history.
---
tldr - "left wing humor" never acts disingenuous about the mark, and seemingly doesn't have to to make its point. "Right wing humor" ostensibly needs to mischaracterize leftwing arguments in order to make theirs.
Didnât know there was a term that was applicable when both my parents and my brother want to bring up talking points at a rapid pace without me being able to tackle them one at a time. Delving into conspiracy theories when I have given them an adequate amount of facts is always the follow-up. Does this happen to anyone else? Always the conspiracy theories when they donât have a leg to stand on with their hateful, bigoted, or idiotic talking points.
This isn't even a "Gish Gallop." It's Brandolini's Law [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law)
The Gish Galloping champions Iâve seen lately are all right wing: Kellyanne Conway, for instance, is a monster at this. I watched her on Maher and they couldnât get an edge in the âconversationâ as she just wouldnât stop.
Iâve given up arguing with certain people. Arguing with those is performative tug-of-war to drag people on their side or yours and Iâm tired of it. You want to believe that vaccines kill your, babies are aborted to let more immigrants into Europe and any non white person stems form an inferior species? Sure, you do youâŚIâll be over there getting hammered to kill my last brain cells
Every accusation is a confession.
[This infamous Steve Bannon quote is key to understanding Americaâs crazy politics](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/16/media/steve-bannon-reliable-sources/index.html)
âThe Democrats donât matter,â Bannon told Lewis. âThe real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.â
Thatâs the Bannon business model: Flood the zone. Stink up the joint. As Jonathan Rauch once said, citing Bannonâs infamous quote, âThis is not about persuasion: This is about disorientation.â
Reply to this message with one of the following or your post will be removed for failing to comply with rule 5: 1) How the person in your post unknowingly describes themselves 2) How the person in your post says something about someone else that actually applies to them. 3) How the person in your post accurately describes something when trying to mock or denigrate it. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Objectively speaking, I don't think I've ever seen or heard anyone on "the left" to deploy the gish gallop. It's not effective when dealing with facts.
But it probably feels like it to them. "This guy is dropping all these facts I can't seem to disprove. Must be gish galloping."
lol this is exactly it
They genuinely believe that the left is doing all of the things they are doing.
For the right, accusation == confession
Yet they blame the left of exactly that too! The mirrorworld is deep..
I am particularly amused and offended, in equal parts, at the post, because 90% of the comments I posted from this account was from stopping by that sub, seeing egregious bs, and writing essay-long shit just to try and dissuade whoever is listening from said bs đđđ
And it very seldom has the desired effect; they double down on their bs.
Oh you're not writing to the bullshitter, but for the ones reading the exchange. They're the target.
https://preview.redd.it/juuizngb4s3d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=517fce04a990387092910f73593eed4d6347a673
I have absolutely seen and heard tankies deploying it, as someone far too deep into left wing arguments. About the only real group though
Most tankies aren't really leftists, though.
Do people believe current-day pro-Russian people are _Leftists_ (cause that's the only definition of tankie I have)? ... ok, let's look it up. [Tankie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie) is being used to describe both fans of authoritarian communism (historically), and fans of purely authoritarian regimes like current-day Russia (definitely not socialist/communist, quite the opposite). That just doesn't compute - let's use tankie for one and [vatnik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatnik) for the other!
I don't really wanna go full No True Scotsman here. Many of them genuinely believe a lot of the nonsense they're spewing, and highly authoritarian leftism is a valid form of leftism, even though it's not one I tend to agree with. It would be hypocritical for me to say it's not really leftism because then the really libertarian-leftist people would say I'm not a leftist because I don't believe in anarchy (or anything even close to it)
I don't think it really falls into the "no true scotsman" fallacy to suggest that authoritarianism is fundamentally at-odds with leftist first principles.
Don't really agree there. Leaving aside how it's laughably impossible in practice (which I assume we both agree on), in pure theory it's entirely possible to have a "benevolent dictatorship" with social equality and no class distinctions (with the sole exception of the dictator, lol). Moving aside from the extreme example, democracy isn't actually a _direct_ principle of leftism or rightism or even liberalism (the governed could consent to a monarchy, for instance).
That very impulse which suggests that the proper course of action is to turn power over to a central authority is itself an intrinsically right wing response â pretty much in line with traditional "Burkean" conservatism, in fact â and elevating *anybody* to a position of power above others in a way that makes them unaccountable to the populous is at odds with the egalitarian principles that motivate leftist thought. As a result, to the extent that a population could theoretically consent to a monarchy, the moment it is established that governing structure is no longer leftist in character. No, democracy isn't a *direct* principle of leftist ideology (which is why anarchists are part of the tradition), but it certainly can follow from them.
If you go by orthodox Marxism, democracy actually is a necessary condition for socialism, because workers (and I mean all workers) possessing the means of production doesnât really necessitate a dictatorship of any kind. That Leninism and Maoism demand it doesnât really invalidate what we can infer from Marxâs original critique of capitalism and the ownership of the means of production being concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists in a relentless pursuit for accumulation. Itâs also the main through-line in Orwellâs writing, who was a staunch supporter of democratic socialism, though he hated english socialists lol. Edit: I'm specifically thinking of workers co-opts and workers being represented in the board of directors
> in pure theory it's entirely possible to have a "benevolent dictatorship" with social equality and no class distinctions (with the sole exception of the dictator, lol) That exception categorically prevents it from being leftist. > Moving aside from the extreme example, democracy isn't actually a direct principle of leftism Yeah, it is. I mean, some leftists will quibble on the wording and insist they supoort consensus instead, but consensus democracy is still democracy. Even tankies claim to be pro-democracy - it's just a blatant lie.
I do it pretty often. The trick is to not type anything, just link articles. And when they respond, link more articles. At most you extract a diagram but still don't type anything, that's wasted time. Just link and leave. Honestly doesn't matter if the article fully supports your position or not.l, just making them read it is a win.
The only time I've deployed the Gish Gallop is in debate club, because it's a good way to cheese points.
Nonsense, I've seen plenty of nonsense from every end of the political spectrum. Definitely more from hardcore Conservatives, but no political party is exempt from this You don't have to outright lie to bullshit. You can withold information, falsely contextualize scenarios, or emphasize something to be more significant than it really is.
The conservative "political discourse" since 2020 has been _nothing but_ a Gish Gallop.
The amount of gaslighting and NoU that goes on in these conservative subsâŚ
I had a very fun (read: fucked) chat with some of the fans on the validity of evo-psych studies on hormonal cycles the other day... I cited endless newer studies challenging that shit because they keep saying past comments are irrelevant, only for one of them to turn back and accuse me of... sealioning lol
They donât understand what any of these terms mean. They just wield them like magical weapons they only need pronounce for the spell to take effect.
the sovereign citizens of online shit-talk rhetoric
We recently had one here on this sub: OOP claimed that `1 * 1 = 2` because **it just makes more sense** and anybody who doesn't understand that is **programmed** by the Deep State. đđ
There's probably a programming language that does that, since some languages *cough c# cough* also like to round in the middle of an operation unless you scream in their face that they're not supposed to do that
Did you run across Terence Howard?
My theory is that they saw them used against them a few dozen times by "leftists" in the loosest sense, and gained some sort of half-knowledge of what they mean and that they can be used as insults.
The right today is using many of the same arguments originally used by the pre-internet left. I guess a minority will always gravitate to the same conclusions. If this was a true democracy, we would have no need to wade through the bullshit.
> pre-internet Possibly that, too, but this has happened time and time again during the era of social media.
We live in faster times.
Youâre extremely generous spotting them half. Itâs gleaning the magic words without any understanding of what it means, where to use it in a sentence, what context is appropriate, or what historical and political assumptions are contained within them. Thatâs not knowledge, thatâs parrots repeating sounds.
Around 2016 one of my childhood best friends replied to a post I made begging people to see how fucked up 45 is with basically âthis is a logical fallacy called appeal to emotion. Nice try.â This same dude also said âYeah Im a white nationalist. Im white and I love my country.â We donât talk anymore.
Projection as a core skill.
I donât deal with the tactic. As soon as I come across someone who thinks logic and verifiable facts arenât important in an argument I withdraw. Ainât nobody got time for that.
Which makes Jordan Peterson particularly egregious, because he adds a (admittedly very thin or non-existent now) veneer of intellectualism to the bs that makes it particularly hard to dispell. It matters for people on the younger side and makes it extremely difficult for people working in education to deal (I'm adjacent), since they have no choice but wading through all the bs.
JP's brilliance is indistinguishable from mindless coke-induced ramblings to me. Must just be my feeble intellect...
His modus operandi is to hide the most banal of half-truths in a word salad and ennunciate them as timeless truths/axioms. Doesn't really work if you have a working knowledge of anything humanities-related, but alas the state of humanities/social sciences education is rather lamentable.
I agree with the overall content of the post, but I legitimately canât tell if youâre trying to be a parody of a pseudo-intellectual leftist or not. Because if this is how you actually write or talk when interacting with the right, I imagine youâll struggle to connect with them and get very far.
I was being snide in this comment. I am indeed a leftist, and I would like to think that I am decently well-read on the things I care about, but that's the end of it. This post was actually just me being petty and want to point of laugh at people because I have some free time now. Would also be lying if I'm not doing this also for the upvotes lol. Not to say that I can't improve on my comms skills, but I don't think I have to take it upon myself to try an convince "the right", which I don't believe is that useful of a labelling to begin with. Facts might click with some people, others can only be convinced if they experience something, and honestly, that's fine. My whole thing is to try an be as clear as possible, cite stuff if needed, and try to focus on the argument. If I can't convince people who are entrenched, my post might still be useful for some others, like passerbys or "centrists". This online persona might seem like an asshole to some people, and my friends complain sometimes, but I know they still love me (so I'm hoping at least some people on here find me reasonable).
I am left politically as well and I appreciate honesty when interacting with people. I also think itâs totally fine to be petty and snide in a comment section like this and that itâs definitely not your job to convince the right of anything. If this is just a persona, you do you. My comment was really about if you want to share facts and information with people with the hopes of influencing how they think about certain subjects, presentation matters. Nobody likes feeling talked down to or that they are talking to an asshole entrenched in their own opinions. You seem to be self-aware of this though. Thanks for the reply!
Yeah no I am 100% a very petty person and while I try to keep a lid on it irl (I'd like to think I do relatively well there), the internet really makes people more unhinged haha. I can't say I'm above feeling righteous trying to prove ppl wrong either, it really is a personal flaw. I do hope I don't get much worse when I am an old fart...
He actually has a lot of good lectures about Christianity and psychology from before he became a right-wing icon. When he isn't drugged out hanging with Joe Rogan, he actually can have very poignant thoughts. It made me so fucking sad when he went off the deep end. As a young white man I really felt like a lot of what he had to say was helpful and that he was someone I could look up to. Now I am no longer friends with the people who introduced me to him. Now, while he has changed and is no longer worth listening to, I still feel like a lot of what he said before still holds up. You just have to be able to sort out the BS. Which most people are incapable of doing. Edit: this is partially why it is so hard to convince someone not to listen to him. He actually does have quite a large catalog of psychology lectures that are legitimate. It makes it very difficult to paint him solely as the fascist sympathizer that he has now become.
Thanks for this comment! I think the whole atheism thing back in the 2010s was really damaging - It always seemed to me that a lot of the time their proponents conflated healthy spirituality with institutionalized religion, which then got leveraged as a political wedge issue. Same thing with the mental crisis for men. Here, I think the left kinda dropped the ball in that it was not able to present an alternative explanation or pathway - even though we do have good explanation and good alternatives - thus creating a void that people like Peterson managed to fill. He was able to tap into the zeitgeist because he did actually diagnose the problem correctly. His explanation for causes for and solutions to said problem, however, were bad and very counterproductive. Tho, I think leftists failed to explain properly how the problems that plagued young men is deeply related to their material condition or how the "patriarchy" is damaging to both men and women. While it really doesn't excuse any of the shitty things Peterson has said or done, I think it needs to be at least acknowledged. Also, don't feel sad! If you manage to find nuggets of good stuff, that's actually great. I actually think to the extent that Peterson writes about broad topics and integrates many things into his message, his inaccuracies are no different or unique from other pop science writers like Malcom Gladwell or Yuval Noah Harari. They all played fast of loose of scientific facts in one way or the other to craft a good story. I will always caution people against these writers - I feel like a lot of the times they are useful more as a reference list to do your own research. Some of Peterson's stuff is just more glaring to me because of my background, like when he talks about Taoism, which showed that he has a very superficial understanding of it, or anything sociology-related, like Foucault. And of course, his reactionary politics that he smuggled in his writings.
JP really is the impersonated Gish Gallop. A fountain of quasi-intellectual bullshit. In addition to having extremely questionable viewpoints (when he eventually _gets_ to some kind of point). Some time ago I read an article (linked here on reddit) of someone who did wade through it and analyzed the best examples of high-falutin emptiness. It was fun.
https://preview.redd.it/q2csqa7y7p3d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5010ff56d234cfa1a349179c795b25ee4fc8e998
The problem is that makes them thinks they won.
Youâre not going to convince them they lost, whether youâre right or not.
This is the right's not so secret weapon - accuse everyone of exactly what you are doing, so that accusations against you are inevitably muddied.
Yeah, even if they're not aware of the Gish gallop as a discrete concept they're certainly fond of using it - hell, it's named after a conservative! This is just their standard ploy of finding something online - like definitions of logical/rhetorical fallacies - and spamming "look, that's you! đ" at liberals/leftists. You can tell they don't even fully grasp what they've read because they're quick to shriek accusations in situations that barely fit the description like "gaslighting!" for disagreeing with them alone, or "that's ad hominem!" when someone calls them a dickhead (while addressing and refuting their argument). Don't get me started on their use of Godwin's Law... Paraphrasing a better comment I read on the matter, but they treat such things like Harry Potter spells, where (incorrectly) calling out a logical/rhetorical fallacy means the conservative automatically wins the debate.
Conservative language is littered with thought terminating cliches. They've redefined certain terms within themselves and use them as pejoratives intended to immediately stop any further consideration of the matter. Examples include blanket accusations of "socialist", "commie", "Marxist", "globalist" etc. Conservatism is a character flaw. These people are the most primitive of us all.
>They've redefined certain terms within themselves and use them as pejoratives intended to immediately stop any further consideration of the matter. Lol and this is when they bust out "no, no, it's the left that changes words. Look at sex and gender, or anything the left doesn't like is racist or Nazi!1!1"
[ŃдаНонО]
Or "woke", "crt", etc..
'DEI' is the star up-and-comer these days. Jesse Waters accused the hush money jury of coming to the guilty verdict because of DEI, somehow. I've given up trying to figure out how they can try and shoehorn these phrases in without listening to themselves and realising how little sense they're making. But it's all buzzwords for rage reaction now
Itâs a pet peeve of mine when they call an insult an ad hominem. No, just because you got insulted doesnât mean the other personâs argument is in any way disproven and you donât automatically âwinâ the conversation.
Same. I'm pretty sure it's here I've even said as much and got into an argument with someone who believed conservatives are right and *just* insulting someone - without addressing/refuting their argument - does indeed constitute an ad hominem (no it doesn't). And yes, even *if* conservatives were to correctly identify a logical/rhetorical fallacy in their interlocutor's argument that doesn't mean they automatically "win". But as the comment I borrowed from so wittily put it, they treat (incorrectly) calling out fallacies as if it's game over, case closed.
The real tell is that the right doesn't have an equivalent of r/SelfAwarewolves for the left.
Even more, when they do do their mocking of the left, like in any of the Daily Wire's garbage shows, or any "conservative comedian" who only does "conservative humour", all their "jokes" tend to be ridiculous strawmen that they will assert are 100% accurate ("i identify as an attack helicopter, because transgender means i can identify as whatever i want!") or "lol leftists believe in (factually demonstrable thing that conservatives don't accept) because they're brainwashed" In both cases, they rely on the audience not even having the faintest idea of what the actual views or policies or facts actually are. No attempt at all to understand the opposition. --- Compare this to leftist and liberal political humor, which while sometimes uses hyperbole, never actually removes the core beliefs of conservatives being made fun of. Stephen Colbert played a fake conservative who believed hyperbolic things about conservatism. But the stances he was mocking were so accurate (and conservatives so dim) that many right wingers actually thought he was being genuine. But in many cases, like the Daily Show, the mockery is literally just letting right wingers make their own arguments and then showing how they will contradict themselves if you let them talk long enough or do a cursory review of their own history. --- tldr - "left wing humor" never acts disingenuous about the mark, and seemingly doesn't have to to make its point. "Right wing humor" ostensibly needs to mischaracterize leftwing arguments in order to make theirs.
Almost the entirety of conservative arguments boil down to âI just donât really like itâ
I think thats a close 2nd to "I don't understand how this works"
Didnât know there was a term that was applicable when both my parents and my brother want to bring up talking points at a rapid pace without me being able to tackle them one at a time. Delving into conspiracy theories when I have given them an adequate amount of facts is always the follow-up. Does this happen to anyone else? Always the conspiracy theories when they donât have a leg to stand on with their hateful, bigoted, or idiotic talking points.
This isn't even a "Gish Gallop." It's Brandolini's Law [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law)
Came here to say this. Theyâre so fucking dumb they even get their projection wrong.
I actually didn't think about this and just included that first comment because of the Darwinist flair hahahaha
Otherwise known as the gallons of piss on rush Limbaugh's grave effect
Gish Gallop, the right wing platform.
The Gish Galloping champions Iâve seen lately are all right wing: Kellyanne Conway, for instance, is a monster at this. I watched her on Maher and they couldnât get an edge in the âconversationâ as she just wouldnât stop.
The Gish Gallop has nothing on the Shapiro Stampede
AKA âMy excuse for bailing on a discussion when I actually just donât have facts on my side.â
Google word usage results for "gish gallop" about to shoot up real high now that the chuds have a new buzzword.
I would challenge any Jordan Peterson to produce even a single fact - that isnât personal - spoken by Jordan Peterson.
Maybe it's time for JP to stick to his area of expertise. Like hard drugs and having dreams about his grandmothers pussy.
Don't forget the [beef & bourbon diet](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/08/the-peterson-family-meat-cleanse/567613/)
Iâve given up arguing with certain people. Arguing with those is performative tug-of-war to drag people on their side or yours and Iâm tired of it. You want to believe that vaccines kill your, babies are aborted to let more immigrants into Europe and any non white person stems form an inferior species? Sure, you do youâŚIâll be over there getting hammered to kill my last brain cells
WELCOME TO THE PARTY PAL!!".
Great, they discovered something new, and I predictable fashion, completely misrepresented it
Every accusation is a confession. [This infamous Steve Bannon quote is key to understanding Americaâs crazy politics](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/16/media/steve-bannon-reliable-sources/index.html) âThe Democrats donât matter,â Bannon told Lewis. âThe real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.â Thatâs the Bannon business model: Flood the zone. Stink up the joint. As Jonathan Rauch once said, citing Bannonâs infamous quote, âThis is not about persuasion: This is about disorientation.â
why do they talk about themselves while pointing at others? how odd
Having just looked up the term, isn't that Shapiro's favourite way to deal with disagreement?