Gish Gallop
January 9, 2025 4:35 AM Subscribe
The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available
We all know who this post is about, but I will not name them. This is something they are a genius at and we need to come up with some way of defending against it.
Other descriptions of the tactic with historical context.
Logical Fallacious
Also, the problem with trying to deal each argument or trial balloon.
Brandolini's law
We all know who this post is about, but I will not name them. This is something they are a genius at and we need to come up with some way of defending against it.
Other descriptions of the tactic with historical context.
Logical Fallacious
Also, the problem with trying to deal each argument or trial balloon.
Brandolini's law
Yes this is what's comically known as "policy debate."
posted by 1adam12 at 4:51 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
posted by 1adam12 at 4:51 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
We all know who this post is about
Is it about the creationist Duane Gish?
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:54 AM on January 9 [13 favorites]
Is it about the creationist Duane Gish?
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:54 AM on January 9 [13 favorites]
There's a section in the Wikipedia article on countering it - I think I might have done something like this before and it doesn't work, although was in much lower stakes settings will admit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop#Countering_the_Gish_gallop
I sometimes think there needs to be a type of news coverage where they flash up on screens or even give some kind of points deduction for using fallacies in debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
You could then actually declare 'winners' in both sides debate, and educate people about a tendency of discourse today that once noticed, you tend to see everywhere.
posted by treblekicker at 4:57 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop#Countering_the_Gish_gallop
I sometimes think there needs to be a type of news coverage where they flash up on screens or even give some kind of points deduction for using fallacies in debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
You could then actually declare 'winners' in both sides debate, and educate people about a tendency of discourse today that once noticed, you tend to see everywhere.
posted by treblekicker at 4:57 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
Sorry should say it does work in that first sentence.
posted by treblekicker at 5:03 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by treblekicker at 5:03 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
treblekicker, here's a review of Mehti Hassan's book, How to Win Every Argument.
Just in case not everyone clicks your wikipedia link, here's a summary. Mehti Hasan says the solution to being faced with a Gish Gallop is to pick the weakest argument and keep hammering on it. Don't let the galloper proceed to another arguement.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 5:07 AM on January 9 [17 favorites]
Just in case not everyone clicks your wikipedia link, here's a summary. Mehti Hasan says the solution to being faced with a Gish Gallop is to pick the weakest argument and keep hammering on it. Don't let the galloper proceed to another arguement.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 5:07 AM on January 9 [17 favorites]
I have no idea who this post is about. If it's an issue either with a particular user, or a particular kind of argument here, I think this should be a Metatalk thread. The mods have changed policy to let more Metatalks through so a Metatalk post should appear quite quickly.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:08 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:08 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
Mod note: To be clear, the post is about Trump and the tag 'uspolitics' has been added.
It's definitely better and helpful to be clear as clear as possible when creating posts. That it won't get derailed when someone gets confused and starts asking who being talked about.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:12 AM on January 9 [14 favorites]
It's definitely better and helpful to be clear as clear as possible when creating posts. That it won't get derailed when someone gets confused and starts asking who being talked about.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:12 AM on January 9 [14 favorites]
It's not just Delirium Trumpens tho - it's anyone unwilling to have a good faith conversation about anything. The sure thing lost in a Gish Gallop is the exchange of ideas; rather it's about "owning" the other side.
posted by whatevernot at 5:14 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
posted by whatevernot at 5:14 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
"This is something they are a genius at and we need to come up with some way of defending against it."
On the national political stage (and I use the word "stage" deliberately), what purpose exactly would it serve even to have a readily deployable defense against rhetorical techniques that have always been about demonstrations of power and clout, not appeals to reason?
Are we looking to sway the opinion of a particular group? And does that opinion have any likelihood of being swayed by appeals to "good" argumentative procedure?
posted by rabia.elizabeth at 5:19 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
On the national political stage (and I use the word "stage" deliberately), what purpose exactly would it serve even to have a readily deployable defense against rhetorical techniques that have always been about demonstrations of power and clout, not appeals to reason?
Are we looking to sway the opinion of a particular group? And does that opinion have any likelihood of being swayed by appeals to "good" argumentative procedure?
posted by rabia.elizabeth at 5:19 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
The gish gallop seems to have become almost the default mode of conversation in online and TV panel shows. The most egregious set of examples is to be found in Piers Morgan's latest vanity vehicle (I won't link to it). The participants are encouraged to engage in Gish Galloping horse races, when they aren't speaking over each other or accusing each other of speaking over each other.
posted by hankmajor at 5:19 AM on January 9 [5 favorites]
posted by hankmajor at 5:19 AM on January 9 [5 favorites]
Ben Shapiro and Pierre Polievre are the two tossers that I think of immediately as gish gallopers.
"A dumb person's idea of what a smart person is"
posted by bumpkin at 5:19 AM on January 9 [17 favorites]
"A dumb person's idea of what a smart person is"
posted by bumpkin at 5:19 AM on January 9 [17 favorites]
"A dumb person's idea of what a smart person is."
See also: Jordan Peterson.
posted by hankmajor at 5:28 AM on January 9 [12 favorites]
See also: Jordan Peterson.
posted by hankmajor at 5:28 AM on January 9 [12 favorites]
The real problem is trying to change the minds of a bunch of people that are not interested in “the truth.” Well, one of the “real problems,” anyway. There are always going to be a mix of people that are interested in figuring things out vs. winning the debate “yay, go team, kick their asses, etc.” Of course, there is also the segment that doesn’t really care much either way.
Depending on my cynicism on a current day, I’d put the proportions around 1::3::6 sincere/partisan/passive. Which is why the gishGallOp is so successful: only ten percent of the audience cares about “truth” and the rest think “gee, where’s there’s smoke there must be *something*.” It’s why advertising exists, also see “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
I think the best way to deal with the Big Lie is one-on-one conversations with people, though it scales poorly.
posted by Gilgamesh's Chauffeur at 5:33 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
Depending on my cynicism on a current day, I’d put the proportions around 1::3::6 sincere/partisan/passive. Which is why the gishGallOp is so successful: only ten percent of the audience cares about “truth” and the rest think “gee, where’s there’s smoke there must be *something*.” It’s why advertising exists, also see “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
I think the best way to deal with the Big Lie is one-on-one conversations with people, though it scales poorly.
posted by Gilgamesh's Chauffeur at 5:33 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
Written before the 'this is about Trump' reminder, but I guess it still applies. This technique depends on having an audience that will not boo or pelt you with shoes when you act like that in public. Sadly this may never come up in practice, but it's still good to keep in mind that 'this is impossible to counter' only ever means impossible to counter in this particular setting, a society that shrugs off or savors a good Gish Gallop.
posted by Ashenmote at 5:42 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by Ashenmote at 5:42 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
To answer the question about what good it does, I think it's just that the Gish gallop deployed gives the impression to many of having won the debate - particularly when it's used in both sides bad faith style modern media 'debates'
....then those type of debates are then cut up and repackaged for social media as "Watch X destroy Y over issue Z."
I worked in PR a long time ago and the phrase "perception is reality" is as true as ever.
Having something that checks a tactic that really is only used to spread falsehoods strikes me as a good thing with no downsides.
posted by treblekicker at 6:01 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
....then those type of debates are then cut up and repackaged for social media as "Watch X destroy Y over issue Z."
I worked in PR a long time ago and the phrase "perception is reality" is as true as ever.
Having something that checks a tactic that really is only used to spread falsehoods strikes me as a good thing with no downsides.
posted by treblekicker at 6:01 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
"Watch X destroy Y over issue Z."
[tick tick tick]
"Watch A's reaction to X destroying Y over issue Z."
[tick tick tick]
"Watch B's reaction to A's reaction to X destroying Y over issue Z."
[etc]
posted by whatevernot at 6:07 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
[tick tick tick]
"Watch A's reaction to X destroying Y over issue Z."
[tick tick tick]
"Watch B's reaction to A's reaction to X destroying Y over issue Z."
[etc]
posted by whatevernot at 6:07 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
This is what I think of when I hear the phrase "Gish Gallop."
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:08 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:08 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I thought this had been renamed "flooding the zone with bullshit".
posted by Lemkin at 6:14 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
posted by Lemkin at 6:14 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
It doesn't seem like the guy has the energy for a gallop these days. Perhaps it should be called the Trump Trot.
posted by automatronic at 6:16 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by automatronic at 6:16 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I think "flooding the zone with bullshit" is the outcome of the Gish Gallop.
Say someone says during a debate says as part of a Gish Gallop "They're eating cats and dogs", that gets reported everywhere, driving out other stories that may actually be important or true.
The gallop games the attention economy by flooding the zone with bullshit.
posted by treblekicker at 6:19 AM on January 9 [8 favorites]
Say someone says during a debate says as part of a Gish Gallop "They're eating cats and dogs", that gets reported everywhere, driving out other stories that may actually be important or true.
The gallop games the attention economy by flooding the zone with bullshit.
posted by treblekicker at 6:19 AM on January 9 [8 favorites]
I guess I like Firehose of falsehood better
(am I doing this right?)
posted by chavenet at 6:30 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
(am I doing this right?)
posted by chavenet at 6:30 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
We all know who this post is about, but I will not name them.
He's not Lord Voldemort.
posted by box at 6:37 AM on January 9 [9 favorites]
He's not Lord Voldemort.
posted by box at 6:37 AM on January 9 [9 favorites]
"This is something they are a genius at and we need to come up with some way of defending against it."
The gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in debate. Do we actually think trump is engaging in a debate?
Are Smart People actually thinking they will be rebutting trump live? He's prez in 11 days time and has essentially a one-way megaphone.
posted by lalochezia at 6:41 AM on January 9 [5 favorites]
The gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in debate. Do we actually think trump is engaging in a debate?
Are Smart People actually thinking they will be rebutting trump live? He's prez in 11 days time and has essentially a one-way megaphone.
posted by lalochezia at 6:41 AM on January 9 [5 favorites]
I do not understand how democratic leadership ( I was a leftist democrat until the leadership’s cowardice began to be their only strategy) how do they just let the orange POS rule the day - day after day after day.
The bad guys use this technique all the time! FFS fight it! Comity and decency and ‘reaching across the aisle’ is, at this point - and for the foreseeable future- is a losing strategy- and the bad guys win over and over.
Harris cleaned Trumps clock in the debate, Trump and team knew it and cancelled any more debates. And it didn’t matter one goddamn bit.
I sometimes dream about McConnell having a late in life conversion over to the left and then the Democratic leadership doing everything he advises - cause he win over and over - choose your fighter: McConnell versus Schumer, who ya got?
And FFS (again) return fire in the orange goo’s endless hostile ‘nicknames’. Stop being above it.
Every time he says “Newscum” or “ Pocahontas” it’s Traitor Trump right back at him. Every single time referring to him it’s Traitor Trump. It will move the needle a hell of a lot more than being nice and respectful.
Fight back already! Even if we don’t win go down swinging for what is right.
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:23 AM on January 9 [17 favorites]
The bad guys use this technique all the time! FFS fight it! Comity and decency and ‘reaching across the aisle’ is, at this point - and for the foreseeable future- is a losing strategy- and the bad guys win over and over.
Harris cleaned Trumps clock in the debate, Trump and team knew it and cancelled any more debates. And it didn’t matter one goddamn bit.
I sometimes dream about McConnell having a late in life conversion over to the left and then the Democratic leadership doing everything he advises - cause he win over and over - choose your fighter: McConnell versus Schumer, who ya got?
And FFS (again) return fire in the orange goo’s endless hostile ‘nicknames’. Stop being above it.
Every time he says “Newscum” or “ Pocahontas” it’s Traitor Trump right back at him. Every single time referring to him it’s Traitor Trump. It will move the needle a hell of a lot more than being nice and respectful.
Fight back already! Even if we don’t win go down swinging for what is right.
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:23 AM on January 9 [17 favorites]
Political discourse is different than rhetoric, but the Gish gallop is probably a reasonable analogy.
But if it is, then one thing that this suggests "we" shouldn't do is amplify Trump's message by just repeating stuff. And yet, from fundraising emails to FPPs, so much is just picking something Trump said and blowing it up, as if it's important we don't ignore any single one specious slander, insult or lie.
posted by mark k at 9:25 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
But if it is, then one thing that this suggests "we" shouldn't do is amplify Trump's message by just repeating stuff. And yet, from fundraising emails to FPPs, so much is just picking something Trump said and blowing it up, as if it's important we don't ignore any single one specious slander, insult or lie.
posted by mark k at 9:25 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
Mehti Hasan says the solution to being faced with a Gish Gallop is to pick the weakest argument and keep hammering on it. Don't let the galloper proceed to another arguement.
It's true, and: you have to hold the galloper's feet to the fire, which means you have to control certain things about the situation. In an in-person debate, you can use that weak argument and the rules of the debate that mandate it continue until the timed ending to get your teeth into the argument and bring the debate to a halt while you humiliate the other person. Essentially, effective debate is all about the emotional spectacle. You force everyone to watch you while you make the other person explain in small words why they made an argument that is very bad and contradicts lots of beliefs held in common (or supposed to be held in common) by the audience.
But the tactic relies on knowing what the audience will find humiliating to watch. I don't think it's very effective for Trump because frankly, the man's verbal acumen isn't what is drawing his fans. What is drawing his fans is the fact that he pushes boundaries until he is either forced with consequences to obey or he is distracted by some other objective. And without the political will to actually send a sitting president to jail, which this country has never mustered yet, he will continue to do that.
posted by sciatrix at 11:24 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
It's true, and: you have to hold the galloper's feet to the fire, which means you have to control certain things about the situation. In an in-person debate, you can use that weak argument and the rules of the debate that mandate it continue until the timed ending to get your teeth into the argument and bring the debate to a halt while you humiliate the other person. Essentially, effective debate is all about the emotional spectacle. You force everyone to watch you while you make the other person explain in small words why they made an argument that is very bad and contradicts lots of beliefs held in common (or supposed to be held in common) by the audience.
But the tactic relies on knowing what the audience will find humiliating to watch. I don't think it's very effective for Trump because frankly, the man's verbal acumen isn't what is drawing his fans. What is drawing his fans is the fact that he pushes boundaries until he is either forced with consequences to obey or he is distracted by some other objective. And without the political will to actually send a sitting president to jail, which this country has never mustered yet, he will continue to do that.
posted by sciatrix at 11:24 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
The Liar's Dividend is another form of this.
posted by mattgriffin at 8:11 AM on January 10
posted by mattgriffin at 8:11 AM on January 10
« Older Where does American socialism stop and American... | ten tips for an "overtly consumptive hobby" Newer »
posted by ocschwar at 4:41 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]