Paul L. says:
Whataboutism.
[Better job on your revision Paul. You’re getting closer to something that is the ball park of addressing the topics of the post. It’s still the gishiest of gallops, but at least you’re getting to something that is human readable and on point.
Suggestion: it might be useful for you to explain which of my points is whataboutism and whether or not you think Vance or Trump is correct about the rhetoric being dangerous topic.
Keep at it and you’ll make it there. I believe in you! – Your Orwellian Overlord!
ps. also for transparency, this email address is now going to moderation first, so we get to have these semi-public discussions without anyone else seeing what you wrote. Again, you are free to write your thoughts on your own site about this and share a link here. I will never edit that out.]
And he deletes the response.
@<a href="#comment-2960774">Matt Bernius</a>:
Most of that post was the 2nd second Trump shooter repeating Democrat talking points about saving Democracy.
And you believe it was the closest that I have been to being on topic.
<blockquote>You’re getting closer to something that is the ball park of addressing the topics of the post. It’s still the gishiest of gallops, but at least you’re getting to something that is human readable and on point.</blockquote>
To refute part of your post.
<blockquote>
Republicans [and their allies in the gun lobby], have been a bit too successful for their own good when it comes to successfully getting the public to move on from mass shootings. In the past, to deflect discussions of gun control in the wake of mass shootings</blockquote>
I don't see the Trump assassinations as mass shootings.
A Mass shooting [Mass Murder by gun] implies that the shooter was using a weapon of war for its designed function of murdering "as many people as quickly as possible & to do the most damage [to any survivors](ask a doctor)."
Not the definition that includes the NYCPD gunning down civilians for officer safety in the 2012 Empire State Building shooting as a mass shooting.
<a href="https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/explainer">a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident. </a>
I remember when the Republican baseball practice was attacked "for healthcare" and it was spun by the media and Democrats as it was a attack on all of Congress instead of just Republicans.
Remember how to defeat and humiliate me and my Gish gallop.
<blockquote>Mehdi Hasan, a British[/American/Muslim] journalist, suggests using three steps to beat the Gish gallop
Because there are too many falsehoods to address, it is wise to choose one as an example. Choose the weakest, dumbest, most ludicrous argument that the galloper has presented and tear that argument to shreds ("the weak point rebuttal").
Do not budge from the issue or move on until having decisively destroyed the nonsense and clearly made the counter point.
<blockquote></blockquote>
You have used point #3.
Call out the strategy by name, saying: "This is a strategy called the 'Gish Gallop'—do not be fooled by the flood of nonsense you have just heard."</blockquote>
Update
Matt Bernius says:
@Paul L.:
See Paul, it might have taken a few rounds of edits, but you delivered a
comment that was coherent enough in unpacking your thinking that it
makes it through without any edits.
Most of that post was the 2nd second Trump shooter repeating Democrat talking points about saving Democracy.
For the record, because you don’t cite your sources, that isn’t clear to your reader. How hard is it to write:
“Here are some of the attempted shooters most recent posts from x:”?
Beyond that, the shooter did repeat Democrat talking points in… checks notes… a tweet or two. And this is a huge challenge with your reasoning process. You find a single example of someone writing something and then project it out to be their only belief no matter how much else the person has written that might contradict it. Which turns everyone–including yourself–into a hypocrite. Which at the end of the day is nihilistic and useless for having a discussion.
If you are advancing the idea that this person’s actions were created by a democratic talking point, then there is a wealth of evidence that the current campaign of terror on the community of Springfield OH is based on things that Trump and Vance have said:
“Unfortunately, right now we have to focus on making sure this rhetoric is dispelled, that these rumors are just—they’re just not true. You know, Springfield is a beautiful place and your pets are safe in Springfield,” Rue said, laughing slightly at how insane it all sounded. …
Coates sighed, exasperated, while Rue shook his head. “If you could speak to the former president what would you tell him?” Coates asked.“We need help, not hate,” Rue repeated. He criticized lawmakers who carelessly cast the city of Springfield in a negative light.
“We have a beautiful city, and we need, we need the national stage to pay attention to what their words are doing to cities like ours,” Rue added. “We don’t need this pushback that is hurting our citizens and hurting our community—I would say that to anybody who would take a mic and say those things.” [source]
So I call whataboutism on your whataboutism and also hit you with the wild draw 4 card!
BTW, you haven’t told us of you come down on “rhetoric doesn’t cause actions” (J. D. Vance) or “rhetoric causes actions” (Trump). So that’s also a reverse card there. Which of the two views do you ascribe to?
To refute part of your post.
Republicans [and their allies in the gun lobby], have been a bit too successful for their own good when it comes to successfully getting the public to move on from mass shootings. In the past, to deflect discussions of gun control in the wake of mass shootings
I don’t see the Trump assassinations as mass shootings.
I completely agree with you. The assassination attempts are technically not mass shootings (though in the first one multiple people were hit). They are still extraordinary shooting incidents. So, unsurprisingly, the same general principles appear to apply in terms of how people are processing them.
And I also suggested, through the Don Jr quote, that perhaps Republicans haven’t taken past non-shooting political assassination attempts particularly seriously. Sew the wind and reap the whirlwind.
A Mass shooting [Mass Murder by gun] implies that the shooter was using a weapon of war for its designed function of murdering “as many people as quickly as possible & to do the most damage [to any survivors](ask a doctor).”
Not the definition that includes the NYCPD gunning down civilians for officer safety in the 2012 Empire State Building shooting as a mass shooting.
a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.
I remember when the Republican baseball practice was attacked “for healthcare” and it was spun by the media and Democrats as it was a attack on all of Congress instead of just Republicans.
Remember how to defeat and humiliate me and my Gish gallop.
See you were doing so well… and then you go down a mass shooting rat
hole of a Gish Gallop. Also you lose points for failing to address the
latest police instigated mass shooting in NYC over the crime of… checks
notes… jumping a turnstile.
https://gothamist.com/news/at-least-1-nypd-officer-shot-near-brooklyn-l-train-police-say
Remember how to defeat and humiliate me and my Gish gallop.
Oh Paul, I’m not trying to humiliate you. My entire intent is how to teach you to bring a coherent argument. Any humiliation you feel is well… on you. In that process I’m not going to let you get away with Gish Gallops anymore.
Mehdi Hasan, a British[/American/Muslim] journalist, suggests using three steps to beat the Gish gallop
Because there are too many falsehoods to address, it is wise to choose one as an example. Choose the weakest, dumbest, most ludicrous argument that the galloper has presented and tear that argument to shreds (“the weak point rebuttal”).
Do not budge from the issue or move on until having decisively destroyed the nonsense and clearly made the counter point.You have used point #3.
Call out the strategy by name, saying: “This is a strategy called the ‘Gish Gallop’—do not be fooled by the flood of nonsense you have just heard.”
Yup. You are correct. That is exactly what I am doing. It’s great that you recognize it.
Once you stop galloping, I won’t have to do that any more. So develop the self understanding to understand you are starting a gallop and stop before you do it. Otherwise the same thing will keep happening. And since I, for the moment, control the edit button, you’re never going to win with a gish gallop. What I will always commit to is being honest when I’m editing yours (or anyone else’s posts) and be transparent about when I am taking the basic steps needed address bullshit being spread.
And as I say every time, if you don’t want to be edited, post something one your blog and put a link to it here.
