“I see your nuanced argument has a spelling error in it, rendering me the victor”

@L0neSiPh0n

5 ай бұрын

That's what happened to me in a comment thread. Guy unironically went "Edited comment. Therefore you're wrong" and kept repeating it until he evaporated from the thread

@heddelinpralin1481

5 ай бұрын

This happens to people like me who don’t speak perfect English alllllllll the time. One grammatical error and my entire carefully crafted argument goes ignored

@alansmithee419

5 ай бұрын

@@heddelinpralin1481 Almost anyone you debate with on the internet will be stupid in some way. The best you can do is maintain your own composure and ask yourself the question: Who is a third-party onlooker (e.g. a moderate) going to believe has the better arguments? That is what's important, not convincing the radicals you're talking to, but convincing anyone who might be watching. And I'll say it again: maintain your composure! If you let them drag you into a dishonest argument or a back-and-forth of insults they will beat you with experience. If you express yourself well, and they go "spelling mistake LOL," the best response is likely no response. Trust onlookers to realise how stupid that is and they will side with you. Don't let them bait you into doing something actually stupid. The instant you do you appear as unreasonable as them and they're going to force you to play defence. You will lose.

@willowarkan2263

5 ай бұрын

Because they have established themselves as the victor by default and only a complete, perfect all encompassing argument that leaves them speechless, as in something that likely doesn't even exist, can ever be enough to change that.

@Barklord

5 ай бұрын

​Meanwhile, they mske no attempt to learn another language at all. ​@@heddelinpralin1481

“A dishonest argument is Lego” Um, actually the bricks you showed during that segment are not Lego, but are, in fact, Mega Blox. I will now ignore every argument you make for the rest of time and fixate on this single mistake. Congrats, Mega Blox guy.

@Serai3

5 ай бұрын

...because that couldn't have been deliberate.

@SyncrisisVideos

5 ай бұрын

I can't believe people still listen to this dude who has no idea what a lego is.

@cllncl

5 ай бұрын

Yeah! What a stupid and unknowledgeable LEGO shill! Mega Blox Guy! Mega Blox Guy! Mega Blox Guy!

@nobodyimportant1968

5 ай бұрын

😆@@SyncrisisVideos

@falseprofit9801

5 ай бұрын

“Lego Ian! Lego Ian! I heard he’s a /weirdo/ who carries on with multiple partners too”

If you're playing monopoly and your opponent is playing "stab the monopoly player and defecate on the monopoly board," then you may notice that playing monopoly will not solve the problem.

@basharic3162

4 ай бұрын

I wanted you to know I'm stealing this.

@thatguyineverycommentssection

4 ай бұрын

that's exactly what a Monopoly-losing socialist would say!

@lka1988

4 ай бұрын

But if you try to match the bad faith opponent's strategy, you're suddenly the bad guy for not playing monopoly.

@brokenrecord3523

4 ай бұрын

@@lka1988 Ahh, the "We go high" method of losing every time.

@davidnoll9581

4 ай бұрын

Just make sure to point out that they're clearly not playing monopoly so you're not going to play it either. Nobody will think you're the bad guy who already doesn't think you're the bad guy unconditionally@@lka1988

when I was 6, this is how I played uno. id make up rules that allowed me to string together massive chains of cards, and refine the edges of those rules on the fly to stop my opponent from doing the same on a matter of “technicality” - to the point where the game would often start with me unloading an entire hand at once and then immediately criticising their turn however I imagined might suit me. i thought I was smart, cos I was “the best at uno”, but they were smarter - because they stopped playing uno with me.

@DavidWilliams-xk4eb

4 ай бұрын

after two years of losing to my girlfriend at every card game we ever played, we mutually decided that me losing every time wasn't fun for either of us. so if i could come up with a convincing enough argument to get points, she would agree to it. highly recommend this way of playing. it is very silly. "you're stuck with a red 3, you lose 500 points." "ah, but you see, i'm red/green color blind. so i thought this was a special Green Three. and holding this mistake against me is discriminatory." "you're right, my apologies, and for my transgression i offer you a tax of 250 points."

A piece of advice I saw a short while ago was: To counter a gish gallop, ask your opponent what their single strongest piece of evidence is. This can make it obvious that their argument only looks strong because it's made of many pieces, and each piece is weak.

@goncalocarneiro3043

5 ай бұрын

Damned be, I hope that tactic is right. I just hope it doesn't backfire somehow.

@thoperSought

5 ай бұрын

I'd like to see how that works

@spacechemsol4288

5 ай бұрын

That still assumes the other party actually has interest in the argument. They only care about "winning". Which means no matter what you do the argument is getting derailed.

@LinguaPhiliax

5 ай бұрын

I should try this out and get back to you.

@bmac4

5 ай бұрын

​@@spacechemsol4288you dont argue on the internet for the sake of winning. At best you argue because anyone watching your argument can decide for themselves who made the better point.

This remainds me of Mark Fisher's Capitalism Realism, and how he says that "reactionaries always ask us for every little detail about our plan for post Capitalism, and if we don't have an outline for every step, then there's no reason to change. As if Capitalism was not a series of at the moment desitions"

@samsprague3158

5 ай бұрын

Eeeeh, not sure I buy the comparison. Deciding to dismantle the current hegemonic economic system and replace it is not the same kind of thing as believing one argument over another. Would you rather make at the moment decisions in our capitalist hellscape or an anarcholibertarian/cyberpunk hellscape? Because that’s the direction forces will push us if we start dismantling shit without a good plan. I still sympathize with the point because capitalism IS screwed up enough to to take some risks to expel it. But those risks should be considered.

@spehhhsssmarineer8961

5 ай бұрын

Capitalism formed as a result of constant free trade. Yes it is made by on-the-fly decisions, but that is its strength. Those decisions are all made by people in the moment- weighing the future and the present and choosing which needs/wants to prioritize and which to shelve. Everyone has different priorities and capitalism just reflects this reality. Sometimes decisions are more successful than others and so inequity is built into the system; some people hate this- as you seem to- but I find it beautiful in its simplicity, utility, and deontology. I do not think communism can accomplish these same things. Communism is monopoly by definition, and the ability of individuals to make choices is always suppressed. The moral argument for communism is one of utility- that by removing the choices and decisions available in free markets you also remove the harms that result from those decisions. This leaves the burden upon the communist to prove that his ideology will reduce harm by removing choice.

@chesspiece4257

5 ай бұрын

@@samsprague3158capitalism was not a 1-time decision, but an evolution as mercantilism and colonialism made a few people rich, who then attacked feudalism with peasants and workers. sometimes it’s okay to say “i don’t know what will happen in 2300, but i sure could use affordable healthcare right now.”

@aotmr1604

5 ай бұрын

the revolution won't be all at once. we'll break some things and fix others@@samsprague3158

@SolarBeingAsh

4 ай бұрын

I totally agree; they always let perfect be the enemy of good

I think the complexity of the Gish Gallop is both its greatest strength and greatest vulnerability. The strength is that, since an argument takes longer to refute than to make, your opponent is going to struggle to rebut every one. But the counterpoint to this is that all else being equal, a short argument is more persuasive than a long one (a rule I will not be following here, lol). So if someone tries to Gish Gallop you, the audience likely won't remember most of the things they said. If you decide to focus on one of their arguments, the focus is likely to fall on that one for the same reasons highlighted here. You can use this by picking the argument that feels the most foundational to their position (as long as you know how to refute it) and rebutting only that one. But to make this work, you have to do a sort of parry/riposte; rebut their argument and then immediately make a related counter-argument. Now, the audience has seen them say loads of shit to you that they mostly don't remember, but they will remember that you had a good response to one of those arguments *and also* put them on the back foot with a specific, memorable counterargument. You look better here, and the other guy will have to do some work to regain the initiative.

@Brasswatchman

4 ай бұрын

I'll go even further and say that you only need to rebuke either the very first point or very last point they made. People generally only remember the first and last items of a long list that's thrown at them (unless one of the middle items holds some personal significance.) Do that, and you can treat it just like a Reverse Gish Gallop -- pretend that you've just collapsed their entire argument, even if that's not actually the case.

This is such a small thing to notice, but as an NB hispanic person, its cool to hear "Latine" in the wild.

Wait, is this just a more complicated version of the "Minor spelling mistake, I win" meme?

@youtubeuniversity3638

5 ай бұрын

I think you mean "an explanation of".

@Santisima_Trinidad

4 ай бұрын

Yes. There's a reason its "grammar nazi" and not "grammar commie".

@RaunienTheFirst

4 ай бұрын

​@@Santisima_Trinidad now I'm trying to imagine what a grammar communist would be like 😂

@archbound6224

4 ай бұрын

A person who claims any spelling or grammatical errors are the fault of all of the conversation's participants equally. As the micro society of the conversation did not properly fund the education on grammar and spelling of everyone involved beforehand. @@RaunienTheFirst (I am using the hyperbolic morons understanding of communism not a realistic one)

@Froggo9000

4 ай бұрын

​@@RaunienTheFirstAbolish grammar. Tear down the oppressive construct that is grammar.

2:30 THANK YOU I've been saying this for years. Conservatives use rules as a way to limit the opposition. They don't believe in them nor follow them. They just use them as a leash. You have no idea how much I felt my reasoning validated when I heard you say the same exact thing.

@ANunes06

5 ай бұрын

It's the core tenet of Conservationism in the US (and loads of other places). I've seen it attributed as "Wilhoit's Law": “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

@L0neSiPh0n

5 ай бұрын

@@ANunes06 Yes, exactly. I read of Wilhoit's law a while ago. Thanks for reminding me.

@MMuraseofSandvich

5 ай бұрын

There's an essay by Paul Sartre where he describes how antisemites seem to be free to play with words, but their opponents cannot because they're the ones bound to follow the rules.

@dayegilharno4988

5 ай бұрын

:) This also points back to these kind of "debates" never being about convincing the opposition, but energizing the believers and creating soundbites and pictures... And to what I strongly feel to be true (but never seem to get validation for): That the psychology of "conservative" voters is fundamentally different from progressive voters!

@SidheKnight

5 ай бұрын

@@dayegilharno4988 reminds me a lot of how creationist propaganda is rarely aimed at getting new converts (since the arguments presented are so laughably bad for anyone who isn't already convinced) but rather to keep the flock from straying, to reassure those who already believe when their faith starts to falter due to contradicting information from outside the cult.

this is why it's so important to openly ridicule the types of fallacies and misinformation they tend to rely on for these tactics and spread honest information. because to someone who isn't knowledgeable on a topic someone who knows what they're talking about and someone who talks a good game with few if any real points are indistinguishable

This has gotten really, really common lately when it comes to people responding to debunking videos, and it's exhausting. For example, the most common response I see from crypto bros to the Folding Ideas Line Goes Up video basically boils down to, "Yeah, he made some good points, but he was wrong about proof of stake validation not being an improvement over proof of work - see, here's xyz example!" while essentially ignoring that the topic of blockchain validation took up maybe 2 minutes out of a video that's almost 2.5 hours long, and has almost nothing to do with the points Dan was making about crypto being a ponzi scheme run by billionaire hedge fund boys.

"Guy is super wrong, but also very loud... So who knows?" is a classic

@corvusheller328

4 ай бұрын

Liberals use it too. More than conservatives

@theparagonal

4 ай бұрын

​@@corvusheller328citation needed

@Pianohnonono

4 ай бұрын

@@corvusheller328Politicians as a whole kind of suck.

@corvusheller328

4 ай бұрын

@@Pianohnonono sure, how this video is biased

@CteCrassus

4 ай бұрын

@@corvusheller328 A politics channel biased?!? What has the world come to!

This is one of the biggest problems I have dealing with politicians as a labor ally, they keep expecting the other side to act in good faith and are confused on why I think they should take a more aggressive tack that gets directly to the heart of the issue.

@cow1816

5 ай бұрын

Which is the other problem, conservatives will constantly hang that little sign saying "good person" above everyone elses head while saying "You are supposed to be the good guys, right? You wouldn't do anything that would hurt us, right?". It's a trap. They are allowed to play unfairly, but if anyone else does the same they will use that as ammunition, as the "good people" aren't playing fairly.

@Tivvv3

5 ай бұрын

Maybe they just do enough to get plausible deniability. Maybe they do this subconsciously so at no point are they actually inauthentic. Maybe think less about your people skills and more about organizing better incentive structures.

@browncoat697

5 ай бұрын

​@@Tivvv3Or maybe bourgeois government exists to protect bourgeois interests

@voxomnes9537

5 ай бұрын

This.​@@browncoat697

@voxomnes9537

5 ай бұрын

They probably aren't your allies, OP.

I love how this series continues to find new ground to cover, despite that it could be summarily oversimplified as "Dishonest people don't care what they say, as long as they win." Put another way, I love this series and always learn something from every episode - even if it's something that *should* have been obvious ❤️

This is why I don't believe in the "marketplace of ideas." The market doesn't work if half the people in it have no interest in the truth.

@arcanineryu

5 ай бұрын

Marketplaces have a tendency to be full of dishonest advertising until they devolve into a game of who can snake oil the hardest.

@musclestruts5032

Ай бұрын

@@arcanineryu An interesting way how the Achaemenid Empire viewed the Greeks was that they were a culture of dishonest liars. Because from their perspective, every Greek town had a place where it was in your best interest to lie, the agora (marketplace). Whereas for the Zoroastrian Persians, lying was seen as extremely immoral.

I might sound nihilistic or surrendering, but I've resorted to disregarding anything said by people who are clearly arguing in bad faith. I've had to deal with what I guess we're now calling "The Reverse Gish Gallop" during almost every conversation with a relative, where whenever I latch onto a falsehood or wild exaggeration, THAT would become the new centre of debate that has it's own Gish Gallop attached to it; and any attempt to steer the conversation back to its original point was seen as concession. I've stopped attempting to do any rhetoric or semantic tricks that debate kids love to use, and only give out legit facts I know and concise opinions I believe in, and let the other side make of that what they will; I'm not going to change the mind of anybody talking to me in bad faith only wanting to tire me out, so why bother.

@callowaymotorcompany

5 ай бұрын

Ive just started gish galloping back.

@SmilingIbis

5 ай бұрын

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has figured out that you just call them on their bad faith arguments and make them swim in their own puke puddle.

@ibahart3771

5 ай бұрын

So have I. And it's really sad, because there's immense value in having a GOOD FAITH conversation with someone who disagrees with you, about why you disagree. We all lose out, but I'm not generous enough to let the pigeon poo on the chess board for the hundredth time.

@Waspinmymind

5 ай бұрын

It only really matters in debates with strangers present. You’ll never turn that person around but anyone in the background ends up less right wing is a good thing. Though I’m not encouraging you to argue with blood relatives. This is more of a why people argue on the internet things.

@gwen9939

5 ай бұрын

They've rehearsed these snappy arguments over and over as it's been shoved into their heads by reactionary media and privately owned news networks. They all respond with the same snappy comebacks with no nuance and no arguments of their own to back them up. What they believe in is entirely fueled by their emotions; what feels easy to believe in, and when this is the crowd that doesn't believe in feelings, and doesn't believe they have biases, only "true objective facts" that just so happens to be their opinions, it's like trying to teach quantum physics to an 15th century god-fearing king worshipping peasant.

You don't respond to dishonest arguments and bad faith opponents, that's the trap. There is no debate. Insist upon maintaining your argument or the topic at hand no matter what. A gish gallop is at its core merely another form of deflection.

@alansmithee419

5 ай бұрын

It is an inherent trap. They can just say a bunch of nonsense and you have two options: 1. don't respond - they will claim you have no response and that they are therefore right. 2. Dismantle each point effectively - the more you have to say to defend yourself the more likely you are to make a mistake that they can latch onto. It's a lose-lose. The best you can do is not respond and make it clear that you see what's going on, hoping that the only people who side with your opponent on the topic are those who were already fanatics of them. Everyone else should understand that they're being ridiculous.

@jimmyha5212

5 ай бұрын

@@alansmithee419 The solution is you don't play their game. You play a different game. They are all about winning and projecting the image of strength and dominance. So you attack them on their insecurities. That's how Ron Desantis was brought down. People started to hate not for his policies, but because he had zero charisma and wore heel lifts. Don't argue against his anti-woke platform, instead just keep talking about Ron Desantis' heel lifts. For Trump, just attack him for being poor and wearing diapers. If your immediate reaction is "hey, that's childish!" well yeah, that's the point. Treat them like children.

@iamjustkiwi

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, the issues have gotten so divided now that there isn't really any convincing people who feel like arguing. You're generally sacrificing your own mental energy for no gain and can easily make your point look weak by breaking some arbitrary rule of discourse they can make up whenever.

@danielgysi5729

5 ай бұрын

That's supposed to be the moderator's job. I'm tired of spineless moderators that let the gop walk all over them while pretending to be neutral

@cattiston374

5 ай бұрын

You can also respond to said bad faith arguments with the one, the only…. Hitchens’s Razor lol, aka the “That’s a nice argument Senator, why don’t you back it up with a SOURCE?!” Because at the end of the day, this people use the almighty technique known as “lying”, so why not force them on the offense and threat them to disregard their arguments if they don’t have any source to back it up?

I saw a short from Jordan Peterson and it blew my mind how much he gish galloped. Literally a woman talking about how men and women have the same basic personality and intellectual capabilities became him talking about how men are more aggressive than women why shouldn't that be equal, and then how more men were bricklayers, and how men work longer hours and in the sun more (the hours is false) and how there are more men in STEM fields (also false) because it always excludes certain professions that should be included in the STEM field such as nursing and doctors because it is considered an applied science...

This makes me think of Calculon on Futurama. He reads a script to see if he's interested in making the film but rejects it because he doesn't like the font it was written in.

My personal favorite version of it is the "each word has exactly one meaning and I decide which it is" where they focus on an alternate, even archaic definition of a pivotal word that was used by their opponent to claim that the statement was saying something it obviously was not.

@shraka

4 ай бұрын

Oh yeah. And fighting over 'correct' definitions is definitely an alt-right tactic too. If they can't win they can just draw you out and exhaust you over stupid nonsense. "Grammar Nazi" turned out to be less of a joke than we all thought.

@Sumoniggro

4 ай бұрын

Well if people didn't try to get loosey goosey with terms this wouldn't be a problem, so clarify definitions first that way people can't move out when cornered by claiming different meaning. The tactic is known as motte and bailey where you will use two different definitions, two different interpretations, two different meanings of one word or phrase in order to strengthen a weaker position. Muslims do it all of the time with the argument "Muslim just means one whom submits" but Muslim is an adherent to the tenants of Islam not just "one whom submits"

@erikthomsen4768

4 ай бұрын

And what usually happens next is that the argument itself is completely forgotten and the only thing people remember is the statement it never got the chance to disprove because people are now arguing semantics.

@guyledouche7939

4 ай бұрын

Just admit you want to redefine "woman" and "racism" They aren't archaic definitions. They're accurate. Sorry not sorry.

@shraka

4 ай бұрын

@@guyledouche7939 Well... the second part of your username is right.

They're not trying to be right, they're trying to assert dominance. So there's another aspect to gish strats: seizing the initiative. They're largely playing to people who judge the vibes, not the content. There's a lot of folks who don't listen to the arguments at all, especially if they're long. And some who assume any long answer to a "simple" question is a lie. If you play their game, and win, you may still lose because they got you to play their game in the first place. The vibe is that they controlled the debate and you just scrambled to keep up.

@gctypo2838

5 ай бұрын

On that, there's a lot of people that think that any "truth" of the world is always simple and self-evident. Certain things (such as psychology, biology, sociology) often have answers to big questions that come down to "it's complicated", and trying to explain that complicatedness ends up rejected because it's not simple, and not self-evident. Someone who sells them a lie in a one-liner will always appear more believable to people like this, no matter how riddled full of holes and fallacies and conflicts of interest that one-liner may be.

@dvillines26

5 ай бұрын

the answer is trolling. if they're playing a dominance game, you establish dominance over them through making them look like a sputtering fool. If audiences are emotional and susceptible to optics over substance, you just have to be calmly rude. the Joe Biden tactic of shaking one's head and calling everything their opponent said 'malarkey' is extremely powerful.

@Seth9809

5 ай бұрын

This is because these people think they understand things better than they do. But also because we have big corporations that use lots of words to seem like they're doing something they're not.

@runakovacs4759

4 ай бұрын

This is painfully common wheen it comes to trans issues. Of course i cannot reply in a single sentence as it is a nuanced intersection of genetics, neuropsychology, endocrinology and culture. "What is a woman" "Well gender can be defined through 3 axes, sometimes four. These axes are gender role (cultural), gender expression (cultural), body-brain relation (biological). Some societies consider sexual/romantic (they may or may not make the distinction) as also a component in determining the gender label. For instance, homosexual men may have didferent prescribed gender roles and a different word for them than men. In modern western societies we use just the 3 labels. Gender expression usually manifests as a modified - a tomboy woman, a traditionalist woman etc. Violation of gender role assigned to women can preserve the label still but not always. There are cases of otherwise cisgender people changing their gender role and expression to match - such as cases of "female husband" in 19th century england. Body-brain component is very complicated and under thorough research. Findings so far indicate the independent of sexual orientation, cis and transgender (medical) show differences in brain regions corresponding to proprioception, kinesthesia, motor control. They show a lower connectivity than cis people. Taking gender affirming cross-sex hormones returns connectivity to cis levels. The cause is hypothesized to be due to 2 reasons: Anatomical signals not matching what the brain expects leading to detoriation Or Direct biochemical action of the right hormone levels binding to receptors causing changes. Given trans people report easing of dysphoria well before physical changes manifest, it is likely to be the second or a combination of the two. So what is a woman? If we abolish gender roles and expression - it is someone whose mind expects their body to have undergone pubertal development dominated by estrogen and progesterone. If we keep gender roles and expression in mind - then someone who fulfils the requirements in behaviour and dress of one of the socially accepted labels of women. Personally. I am a gender non-conforming transgender woman who primarily feels like a woman due to needing hrt to feel okay.

@KingBobXVI

4 ай бұрын

@@runakovacs4759 - and of course, despite how good and thorough that response is, none of them will read it, some literally saying, "lol, tl;dr", and others just skipping it and moving onto the next thread to whine, "wHy CaN tHeY nOt AnSwEr ThE qUeStiOn, iTs So EaSy". Also, they say it's easy, but then never actually answer it themselves. I mean, they'll mindlessly regurgitate, "adult human female", but refuse to engage with any criticism of that answer (I usually go after "adult". After all, it's a social construct, and if "woman" is defined by a social construct, then it itself is a social construct, right? At this point they usually shit on the board and knock over the pieces, before going to another thread to whine about no one answering the question).

Reminds me of how internet arguments seem to have been won by the person who corrects another's spelling error

Didn't a lot of this used to be called 'Fisking'? After renowned journalist Robert Fisk? Sadly passed away in 2020, but he was formidable in his arguments - he was based for a long time in Beirut, and was on the ground during the Gulf Wars and massacres in refugee camps etc. His opponents couldn't put a finger on his arguments, so what they would do was go through every word with a fine tooth comb, and if he got the time of a meeting out by an hour, or said something happened on a Friday, when it was actually a Thursday, they would use that one fact to ignore everything he said, and just keep saying he couldn't be trusted because he got a time out by an hour or suchlike. While his opponents told full-on lies without shame, he was attacked for getting the tiniest nuance slightly incorrect in a quickly developing story. It is a technique used to this day, as your excellent video proves!

@youtubeuniversity3638

4 ай бұрын

...so they named it after the guy it was used on.

Paraphrase: The core principle of conservatism is "Rules protect, but do not bind me. They bind, but do not protect you."

@slayerofthebuzz1

4 ай бұрын

Ah, true equality. . .

@brentoncarter4275

4 ай бұрын

Liberals are also right wing and operate on the same premise.

@brandonsaffell4100

4 ай бұрын

Paraphrase. Conservatives are hypocrites.

@drdrums1

4 ай бұрын

Rules for thee but not for me. That's why the history of policing in this country is best understood as the people on top wanting muscle to keep everyone who wasn't them in line. The ones on top don't need police, or even rules, because the assumption is that what they do is by definition fine. The rules are to stop everyone else from interfering with them. It's the old rex est lex writ large - the king is law. We don't have a king, but we have a dominant class, and they act in the same fashion.

@pickyphysicsstudent201

4 ай бұрын

This would be an awkward moment to bring up all the rules broken by the Unipartists over the past few years. I've noticed it as a 3-tiered justice system. The Elites who can do whatever the fuck they want, the Loyalists who get a pass so long as they support the Elites and the Scum who get spat on in the street for daring to disagree. It's a class system, which focuses on groups having power. So long as you don't go against the grain, then it's acceptable.

While I miss the longer alt right playbook, I understand why they're shorter now, and they're still insightful and helpful. Good stuff

@MeNowDealWIthIt

5 ай бұрын

They're shorter now because there isn't so much to say on them. Originally they were planned for a big compendium video, but then Ian decided to publish them individually instead. The last 3 videos, about what *to* do as opposed to what *not to do*, will be much more meaty.

@MrKosobi

5 ай бұрын

Was this helpful though? Isn't this stuff supercommon knowledge to everyone?

@JohnVance

5 ай бұрын

@@MrKosobi Nope, only you. You're the genius. The rest of us are just incapable of grasping what you've already mastered.

@snidelywhiplash

5 ай бұрын

@@MrKosobi No.

A very good example of this is why you should never talk to police. You might state that you couldn't have committed the crime because you were at lunch, the police ask where you ate and you make an honest mistake, that day you went somewhere else but you forgot. In court they suddenly state they have proof you lied about where you were, the cameras proved you didn't eat there.. so where were you? Suddenly you become a liar. You didn't commit the crime but you lied to police, you didn't mean to... but you did.. and now you can't be trusted, you must have lied for a reason, right? Guilty. Sometimes the only way to win is to not play the game.

I love the Lego vs Jenga metaphor, your writing is impeccable as always.

@KaiHenningsen

5 ай бұрын

... for people who know these games. Almost everybody knows Lego, but Jenga? Sorry, never encountered that before.

I feel like surely it should be possible to derail the gallop by hyper focusing on one issue and not letting it go and/or bringing a mountain of receipts. Isn't it possible to gish gallop back but with actual facts? Also, I swear to god, they would absolutely latch onto something like "old people receiving junk mail is abuse" and in the same breath say "old people actually LIKE working at Chik-fil-a"

@Sothalic

5 ай бұрын

You assume they would allow them to be considered actual facts and not just cook up some inane conspiracy theory that happens to go against it. Also need to consider the sheer expenditure of energy required to accurately debunk a gish gallop VS how easy it is to pull it off, by the time you've done your work they've already taken multiple victory laps and grabbed a steel chair to smash you with just to make sure. The point isn't that it can't be done, but that doing so is an exercise in futility.

@BobbyJ529

5 ай бұрын

destiny has gotten really good at drilling into an issue to halt the gish gallop lately.

@BardovBacchus

5 ай бұрын

But of course! No one likes junk mail and everyone loves Chik-fil-a, and when right wing media says everyone, they just mean their team. Considering how insecure most of them are, I think the best tactic is just mocking them. Why not treat all their 50 year old "family values" nonsense the same way you treat the flat earth; This is not worth my time to discuss. There is no 'debate'. Right wingers act like children. I do not debate children

@whynaut1

5 ай бұрын

​@@BobbyJ529please tell me that their is a counter to the gish gallop

@4dragons632

5 ай бұрын

This is my method, in the annoying and rare times I ever have to deal with this rubbish. I take the first false claim made in the gish gallop, disprove it, and dont let up until they very explicitly retract that point. It's hard to do as most of the time they quit the conversation or say you're not listening to them properly, but it can be done.

By far the least fun kid in debate club, have to spend your full time calling them on it cause they’ll never admit it.

@willowarkan2263

5 ай бұрын

they are never wrong if they never publicly acknowledge that they can be wrong.

@WokioWolfy

5 ай бұрын

Its amazing the level of ignorance people go to just feel safe and secure.

@rpenm

5 ай бұрын

Just re-enumerate the arguments that they have failed to refute. You don't need them to admit that they're wrong - the audience will notice.

@shaxxmeer

5 ай бұрын

FOR REAL it is annoying to be winning every point, and they go completely off-topic even if you stay on center, the debate at large has been irreparably thrown off-center because they're going to harp on it until the end and it's so BORING hearing it repeatedly

@frednurk5168

5 ай бұрын

They aren't playing a game where they can lose.

Thank you. I've heard the term "gish gallop" thrown around. But never really knew what it meant.

The key understanding is whether you’re talking to someone about understanding, or just about winning. If it’s just about winning, don’t waste your time being reasonable and thoughtful. For what it’s worth, we do need a “Godwin’s Law” type of response to this - a clear code of “I recognize your dishonest tactic and I’m not playing your game.”

I was in Abeka for a year, and in the science textbooks they kept talking about how great Duane Gish was. I was already skeptical and so i decided to look him up just to find that he had an entire fallacy named after him.

@qwertydog9795

5 ай бұрын

ah yes abeka...

@spaghettiisyummy.3623

5 ай бұрын

Where is Abeka?

@caffetiel

5 ай бұрын

​@@spaghettiisyummy.3623 Not a place, but a homeschool curriculum

@spaghettiisyummy.3623

5 ай бұрын

@@caffetiel OH!

@LimeyLassen

4 ай бұрын

Ok that's really funny. If I had a fallacy named after me I'd become a hermit.

See the previous videos; frame the issue, control the narrative, never play defense. I think a corollary to the Jenga analogy is; a single anecdote of support is all they need to cling to. If they can point to one instance that proves or supports their point, check mate lib. Thanks, I adore this series

@alexielouisl.8462

5 ай бұрын

yeah thats pretty much how it goes. i've seen it happen before and these people are so laser focused on finding the one little thing to drag you down like predators its crazy :/

@BardovBacchus

5 ай бұрын

In my experience, @@alexielouisl.8462, 'both sides' are not equally tribal. Our infotainment industry, aka The Press™, sell us a lazy narrative; politics are polarized and tribal. It just happened. No one *caused* that

@johnrains2339

5 ай бұрын

Ron DeSantis in every single debate. I started calling them “Ronecdotes”

@frednurk5168

5 ай бұрын

"Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." -Jean-Paul Sartre

As somebody who spent way too much of their life debating people on the internet I really appreciate these videos for showing me how incredibly naive I was being.

@alancoe1002

4 ай бұрын

I, too, have fallen into that vortex of disaster. I post less than I used to. My opinion will not 'win',, especially if I've argued well. It won't crack the cult brain-shell.

@maciejgrenda216

4 ай бұрын

​@@alancoe1002I had been doing the same and I also kinda came to regret it. but at that point I reckoned that me constructing an argument maybe was not for my adversaries but rather for the people in the audience.

In moment's like these it's more important to convey to your audience that your opponent isn't arguing in good faith. Those that have no interest in good faith argument weren't going to be swayed by the quality of your answers anyways, so you instead have to assume that those listening actually care about meaningful discussion of the issues. In that case clearly showing that your opponent is arguing in bad faith will cost them those they hope to sway. This is much easier in online forum based discussion, such as reddit, where you can assume an audience exists and your opponent can't hide behind people losing track of previous statements. It turns these kinds of individuals into teaching moments for future readers.

Unrelated to the actual video, but I really like the aesthetic of the TV stuff. The hand-drawn style and line boil. It's a cute change of pace.

You used to see this kind of thing in religious debates on the internet. If someone talking about evolution made any kind of error, the religious side would react as though that suddenly made their whole argument 'true,' despite the many obvious inconsistencies in their beliefs.

@hughcaldwell1034

5 ай бұрын

"But what about the Piltdown Man!? Did you even know it was a HOAX?"

@humphreyspellingbee1732

5 ай бұрын

Tbh, I think there needs to be more public awareness that *every* scientific field has areas of uncertainty, and that those uncertainties do not disprove the scientific method as a whole

@Silverwind87

5 ай бұрын

I've also seen a case of "assuming dishonest people abide by the same rules they impose on everyone else." A common argument I've seen from Christians (and I truly believe this is exclusive to Christianity; no other religion has a requirement to convert as many non-believers as possible) is as follows: "If you don't believe in God, how do you think the universe was created? It _had_ to have originated from something." It's the Watchmaker Analogy. The universe is supposedly so complex that it must've had an intelligent creator. This is when the atheist will either respond with "But how do you know it was _your_ deity who created the universe," or my favorite response, "If that were true, wouldn't God also be complex enough to require a creator?" And at that point, the Christian no longer plays by the rules they forced on you. "You can't create something from nothing" applies to anything an atheist says, but it doesn't apply to Christians, because of faith or some bullshit.

@heathern9705

5 ай бұрын

Interestingly (I think), the "Gish Gallop," originated in (pre-internet) debates about evolution. Like, that's where Duane Gish used the strategy.

@humphreyspellingbee1732

5 ай бұрын

​@@Silverwind87 Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not totally certain why "God must need a creator" is a good rebuttal to the watchmaker analogy. To me, it seems like there are two obvious counterarguments. The first is that the universe has a definite start point in the Big Bang, which would seem to imply some sort of extra-universal cause for the universe's existence; the second is that most popular hypotheses about the origins of the universe (e.g. multiverse, simulation) aren't any more or less scientifically substantiated than the existence of a divine creator. How do you address these problems?

Personally when I see gish-gallop I tend to do the opposite of what the responders said in your example. Basically instead of refuting every point. I recognize the sheer number of miss representations and then pick out the easiest one to refute, or the core one that underpins their arguments and then take that one apart. The comments normally have to be at least somewhat related so there usually is a core argument there, even if it's not directly stated. Think of it like looking to remove the keystone from an arch. Once a main component is removed, the rest of the arguments just kind of fall over.

This is just my default response to being on the receiving end of a Gish Gallop. Pick out the least defensible of their firehose of arguments, and key in on it so aggressively that they have to divert their attention from the rest of the unresolved points to defend that one. If they give up on that one, they've ceded ground without making progress, and if they continue to defend, the rest of their points become forgotten. When dealing with bad-faith argument, turnabout is fair play.

Whenever this happens, I'll say "I assume that by pressing this one issue, you've conceded on all the other points?" They'll have no idea how to proceed, and they'll usually proceed as if I hadn't said it, but it makes me feel marginally better that I've at least called them out on their bullshit.

3:35 To go with this analogy: there is a maneuver in Starcraft called "base trading." Instead of engaging the attacking army, the player decides not to play defense, sidesteps the army entirely, and attacks the enemy base. The idea is to kill them before they kill you. (Also a very important side note, the Zerg Rush is rarely done via pure mass Hydra. Don't try this at home.)

@vehx9316

5 ай бұрын

I mean this only works in SC because there is a fundamental rule, that if you lose all your buildings you lose the game regardless. In a debate against the Alt-right, there are no rules except for that one rule which is the alt-right wins.

@nate567987

5 ай бұрын

but at that point you lose because they will embrace what you call them

@LimeyLassen

4 ай бұрын

Mass hyrdra is more of an anti-air strat, yeah :D

@dennischiu272

4 ай бұрын

@@LimeyLassen Not really the point. The point is that lings exist.

@brawlinharry6461

3 ай бұрын

i was laughing too at the mass hydra zerg rush. maybe ian is older than we young kids and starcraft 1 had some viable hydra rushes? does anyone of you know? :D

I want you to know I absolutely love these videos. They’re incredibly well presented, well thought out, incisive, just perfect, and a massive inspiration. Please keep up the great work and always looking forward to the next one!

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Frank Wilholt

For years, YEARS, I would see people do this and never understood how / why others didn't see the inane framing strategy that some people would use. I had to admit at some point that a larger number of people than I'd like just don't see the framing strategy at all. They're immediately pulled into it and I'm still a bit baffled as to how. But these videos always help and I'm so thankful you keep putting these out to help explain. Thank you 🙏

@shraka

4 ай бұрын

Are you neuro divergent by any chance? A lot of these strategies exploit loopholes in the way the average brain perceives things. Some ND people have fewer of the 'standard' loopholes - though this often comes with other often less fun loopholes which make functioning in society hard.

@sentientnatalie

4 ай бұрын

@@shraka As a neurodivergent person, this makes sense to me.

@CalebSundance

4 ай бұрын

Hmmm, I'm not giving away my brain secrets to random internet person "shraka". Leave me and my thinking structure to mystery why don't you. (Joking... there might be a touch)

@shraka

4 ай бұрын

@@CalebSundance LOL. Well it could just be that you noticed one of these strategies at some point and developed a strong aversion to it.

@shraka

4 ай бұрын

@@sentientnatalie Unfortunately it seems a lot of ND people are just as easily manipulated, sometimes by only slightly modifying the standard strategies.

This is why media literacy is important for EVERYONE to have, so that the audience hopefully also doesn't fall for it.

@randomusername1735

5 ай бұрын

I've seen quite bad media literacy in the online left as well recently. It probably wasn't much better earlier but I wasn't paying attention to it

@Froggsroxx

5 ай бұрын

@@randomusername1735 perfect example of someone needing media literacy, it's why I said EVERYONE, but I guess if your goal is to gesture vaguely at leftist hypocrisy then you nailed it.

@randomusername1735

5 ай бұрын

@@Froggsroxx I, as a leftist, am not concerned about liberal and right-wing hypocrisy, though. It's not my responsibility to fix their fundamentally bad ideology? I was agreeing with you, but it seems you've interpreted otherwise

@kostajovanovic3711

5 ай бұрын

​@@randomusername1735names to look closer at?

@randomusername1735

5 ай бұрын

I do thank you for immediately demonstrating my point though

i really like the new editing style, though i also love the more long form videos. i just love you stuff and hope you keep making it

Arguing with people like this is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesnt matter how well you play, they'll just knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around victoriously.

I noticed some simularities between this and "the card says 'moops.'" In both cases, they're dismantling an argument based on some pedantic nonsense without actuality addressing the argument.

@Mikewee777

4 ай бұрын

" Moors ? Probably a typo "

What makes it worse is that we let them do it to us, why should we respect their rules when they clearly don't follow them. But sometimes once im a while the truth does prevail even if it takes time for it to finally be accepted.

@vincentraitt5697

5 ай бұрын

That’s why I think the best entry in this series, and the one I go back to the most, is “You go low, we go high.” Unlike the rest, that just explain conservative thought, it explains why liberals let conservatives run all over them.

@SpoopySquid

5 ай бұрын

Funnily enough, the _You Go High, We Go Low_ video covers exactly this

@sharonharris9782

5 ай бұрын

​@@vincentraitt5697my new mantra is ,"You go low, I go lower." It's the only way to deal with conservatives these days. I know it's not for everyone but it works for me

@dvillines26

5 ай бұрын

@@sharonharris9782 conservatives are crybullies. They can't endure the sort of bullying they regularly practice against others. They expect liberals to just take it, or try to argue with them. Whenever a liberal doesn't walk into their very obvious bear traps they bray that it's unfair and against the rules.

@jijitters

4 ай бұрын

Because unfortunately the refusal to take part in an argument is seen to them as admitting defeat to it. That is an incorrect and frankly stupid belief on their part but when someone believes such a thing, there isn't really any other way around it.

Your outro music still rocks. I always listen to it instead of clicking onto the next video in my playlist.

Ah, the days when you could have an argument without your opponent threatening your life.

I remember this from the old days of KZread creationists, where they would ignore the previous dozen stupid arguments they made which got countered, and then claim victory after finally finding *_one_* new argument that was new to the opponent

I've always gaped at their most transparent tactic. Ask a loaded question, interrupt, change subject. Its just so blatant and obvious.

Much love to this channel, keep up the good work!

When the birther movement was in full swing, they used (mostly in message boards and places like KZread comments) a turbocharged version of the Gish gallop which we referred to as ‘worshipping the pile’ . It consisted of posting a large collection of long debunked bullshit (often cut and pasted) hoping that people wouldn’t have the time or inclination to post a rebuttal. Dismantling those piles complete with citations and sources was really satisfying, and the resultant hissy fit from the pile poster was generally epic.

When I've been debating against people who've used this tactic I've had some luck with asking them to explain why their minor point is significant. It returns the onus to them to explain why their criticism is important.

@nate567987

5 ай бұрын

because it shows you don't really care and don't think that why its important

@mikkelens

4 ай бұрын

This is my favourite way of talking with reactionary people. Literally just let them pick and choose, then walk through their argument. You would think this means “letting them argue” (= “they win”), but in my experience either it’s not like that at all or it’s still better than having to engage with every bad take. Example: > “You know I don’t trust the immigrants in our town.” You could try to refute the implications or teach the opposition/audience why they are wrong, but this unfortunately requires an unrealistic amount of good faith and trust in you as the speaker being the righteous one. It’s literally just better to force them to explain their own argument out loud to themselves and others. It undermines it in the same way having to do long explanations in an attempt to refute the point would undermine your position, and lets you poke at it with differing views without having to say something loaded yourself or assert anything at all.

Moral of the story: you don't argue with people who are not interested in the truth. They want the visibility you can give them, nothing else.

@deathracoffee

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, that applies to your uncle at Thanksgiving, but what if the persin you describe dictates the laws you need to abide by It's much more complex issue

@correctivemeasures8244

5 ай бұрын

I agree - it perfectly describes the modern left.

@drgrounder

5 ай бұрын

Vote

@BigFatSeal10

4 ай бұрын

Yeah, cause your political opinion is the definite truth. How narcissistic can you guys be. There is no “truth” in politics just opinions

@sentientnatalie

4 ай бұрын

@@BigFatSeal10 The facts (truth is irrelevant) have a left-wing bias...

Thank you for your work, I'm sharing this where I can!

The way this series is a comfort watch for me, because it helps me feel sane again

You will be intimately familiar with this manouver if you've ever said the words "assault rifle" while talking to a conservative about gun control.

@grmpEqweer

5 ай бұрын

Try using the term "semiautomatic rifle," instead. "Assault rifle" is actually a term crafted to produce an emotional charge, and isn't a precise description. (...Leftist for **responsible** firearms ownership here.)

@keythah

5 ай бұрын

​@@grmpEqweerwell sure, ok, but that's not the point. The point is that even if you use the correct term, you don't win against people like that just by being correct

@ragalyiakos

5 ай бұрын

@@grmpEqweer Oh, trust me, they WILL find a way to spin it as if you have no idea what you're talking about, no matter what words leave your mouth.

@codenamepyro2350

5 ай бұрын

"Assault rifle" is generally very poorly defined both colloquially and legally, no matter if you're left or right, you really shouldn't use the term when talking about politics

@mostesthighest

5 ай бұрын

Be cause you're not correct ​@@keythah

One time a guy refused to accept my argument because I made the "false" assumption that you can't be fully correct if you contradict yourself.

@lVideoWatcherl

5 ай бұрын

What

@TriangleChloros

5 ай бұрын

Without knowing what you were actually arguing, that sounds like they might have been pointing out the fallacy fallacy (the fallacious assumption that because the *argument* is wrong, the *conclusion* must also be wrong).

@kappascopezz5122

4 ай бұрын

@@TriangleChloros To clarify: it was about how the moral teachings of the Bible can't be objective morality if they contradict each other. The point they chose to attack was that self-contradiction actually isn't a problem.

@Sumoniggro

4 ай бұрын

​@@TriangleChloros that makes your argument logically unsound you can't get to your conclusion logically so while the conclusion may be true your argument is false.

@Sumoniggro

4 ай бұрын

​@@kappascopezz5122 which morals contradict?

1:12 So nice of Dwayne Johnson to volunteer to be part of this scenario...for the sake of argument of course.

Off topic, but I love the little text animations in this one. They work really well!

The problem is, we don't have to convince the audience that our opponents are wrong. We have to convince the audience that this is more than just a popularity contest and that they should care about facts.

@Sumoniggro

4 ай бұрын

The overwhelming majority of the audience have their minds made up prior to watching a debate and are more interested in the tribalistic aspect of it where my side beat your side, you can see this in comment sections where when there was an obvious winner but the other side just goes on about how their guy/gal demolished the opposition, debates are nothing more than circle jerks or blood sports.

If I find a single typo on any frame of this video, you're mine!

THESE PLAYBOOK VIDEOS ARE SO BRILLIANT HOWWWW OMG!!!!!

This is a bullying tactic. It's been used on me in the past multiple times. I recognized it right away.

For TV debates, allocate each participant 30 minutes mic time which they can use how they like. Put the first point forward and participant one gets control of the mic. P1 can talk as long as they like, but once the control is handed over P1's mic is muted until P2 is finished and hands control back. I'd love to see a format like this. Fed up with children squabbling like in a playground where whomever shouts loudest and longest wins.

@nate567987

5 ай бұрын

any format you can make will be broken.

@KaiHenningsen

5 ай бұрын

That is exactly the worst format there is. "Formal debates" are for the debate club crowd. They're terrible in practice.

@cly_

4 ай бұрын

@@KaiHenningsen how so?

@kyguypi

2 ай бұрын

@@cly_ one example would be the gish gallop. I can't spend my 30 minutes making all sorts of claims, and you likely cannot unmake all of those claims in your 30 minutes. This is particularly true if you don't know what I'm going to say in advance, so you can't for example, check my sources. You can't interrogate my information, etc. This works in formal debate because formal debate judges are trained. In public debate, an audience isn't going to recognize logical fallacies or strictly apply rules surrounding the burden of proof. Real audiences will believe something they want to hear without evidence. Real audiences are persuaded by logical fallacies, and in this format, you have to spend your 30 minutes giving a lecture on how formal logic works to even begin breaking apart the many fallacies your opponent can fit into 30 minutes. In a dialog, you can isolate and interrogate individual arguments as they're being made.

I'm just here for the outro song ...in all seriousness though, this specific tactic makes me so fucking mad, I really appreciate the eloquent way you explained it. Great stuff as always!

@vis7139

5 ай бұрын

Really annoys me too. I find that just hammering the original point home and then asking them why they're so caught up in a minor point of language

They love doing the same thing with statistics. The supposedly 'facts based' right LOVES to use stats to imply a veneer of truth to their dubious claims, but the minute you counter with stats, they suddenly become expert statisticians who are very concerned about a slight oversight in your studies methodology. And so they assert in one blanketing statement that your entire study is disregardable (carried with it the implication their assessment of things is thereby correct), because they dishonestly use existence skepticism and scrutiny outright disregard entire uncomfortable realities.

Say for the sake of argument I’m super depressed we still need these videos…

Why is this upsetting content so weirdly calming? Thanks guys. Keep it up ❤

@nate567987

5 ай бұрын

because it helps understand this world

I thought the reverse gish gallop would be asking a seemingly simple question with a deceptively nuanced answer, then pointing to the required verbosity to capture said nuance as a sign that the other person is confused or being deceptive. See also: "what is a woman?"

@youtubeuniversity3638

4 ай бұрын

Care to coin a name for it yourself, while you're here?

@jijitters

4 ай бұрын

This is so common with conservatives, but yeah I've never heard it given a name. "If you can't very simply explain this very complex topic to me that obviously means YOU'RE stupid and wrong, because it definitely can't mean that sometimes things are more complicated or nuanced than I'm capable of understanding ):"

@Sumoniggro

4 ай бұрын

​@@jijitters true knowledge is being able to distill a subject into simplicity otherwise you're just parroting something you read/heard without fully comprehending the idea. A woman is an adult female human, simplicity.

@kyguypi

4 ай бұрын

@@youtubeuniversity3638 Ha, sure. I'll go with "Occam's chainsaw".

@Malachite7

4 ай бұрын

@@Sumoniggro Too much simplicity only raises further questions. What's a female, and what do gender and sex mean?

This series is fantastic !

Thanks for putting to words something I've had a sense of for years.

American politics and its charecters are like a dysfunctional family with dramas every single day😂

@drgrounder

5 ай бұрын

Every single country in the world has this same political dynamic

@Gandhi_Physique

5 ай бұрын

@@drgrounder You must have a weird definition of what a country is.

@Seth9809

5 ай бұрын

@@Gandhi_Physique No, this same issue is happening in Poland and the UK.

@KaiHenningsen

5 ай бұрын

@@Seth9809 OK, so "USA, Poland and the UK" is "every country". Noted.

@ProsecutorZekrom

4 ай бұрын

The whole world is basically an extremely dysfunctional family, seeing as we're all descended from a common ancestor and are all no more than 50th cousins with each other.

Engaging with a liar in such a manner is accepting the burden of truth when it wasn't even on you. As Joshua said in War Games, "The only winning move is not to play."

@LimeyLassen

4 ай бұрын

You're totally right! Or perhaps, pack the game up and play a different one.

@erikthomsen4768

4 ай бұрын

Well it isn’t that easy. Leave argument unchallenged on a forum and lazy people will eat it up. The human brain likes pattern so someone just have to spew nonsense enough times until people start believing it.

@waxwinged_hound

4 ай бұрын

But then not playing proves that you're scared to debate so you must have bad points that are impossible to defend.

Very succinct. Thank you for making this.

Could have used this knowledge a couple months ago. Very helpful to have a name for this phenomenon, thank you!

While these videos are great for informing what they're doing, I really wish they also included something along the lines of "and here's some ways you could deal with this"

@youtubeuniversity3638

5 ай бұрын

You don't deal with them. You avoid. The second that a Debate starts, the truth's already lost.

@4pigeons

5 ай бұрын

​@@youtubeuniversity3638there is no debate to begin with

@Invisibleguy-kn7bd

5 ай бұрын

@@youtubeuniversity3638 No, we should be looking for ways to actually engage them and call them out, otherwise it just looks like weakness/cowardice. We can use debate to our advantage too, but if our response is always to just ignore and avoid them we'll never win.

@user-fu9hc3oi3l

5 ай бұрын

The way to deal with it: Commune and organize with people who share your beliefs. Conservatives can talk over a single liberal politician who themselves don't have the people's best interest at heart, but they can't silence a crowd with personal stakes in how things are run.

@arturoaguilar6002

5 ай бұрын

@@Invisibleguy-kn7bd I could be wrong, but I think that Danskin's stance is that the cost of engaging them outsets the wins; and that there is more benefit in reaching out those who aren't the debate's audience than to play their stupid games just to barely win stupid prizes.

Love the TV effect for the characters and extra editing work!

Had a guy do this to me in a conversation, and soon after he told me that he listens to Ben Shapiro daily. I said yea, that tracks. Same tactic. What amazes me is that Fox News 'interviewers' do this all the time interviewing people they disagree with and these people think its smart. Its not. Its just being an asshole.

This is why my master advised me to make inductive and adductive arguments instead of deductive arguments.

Great point, for me personally there have been so many times where I sat back in a conversation and thought “Oh shit, this girl doesn’t care about the truth at all?” There are no rules, no requirement for internal consistency. It’s just children whining unless they get what they want.

@soulstealer5625

5 ай бұрын

Sounds like that politico article that vaush was reading. No coherency or thought, just a grab bag of grievances and anger.

@Vohlfied

5 ай бұрын

If you haven't seen TA-RP's "You Can't Get Snakes From Chicken Eggs" he points out that there is a floor to how simple the truth can be and still be _the truth_ while a lie has no such requirements. A lie can be as simple as it needs to be because it doesn't conform to reality.

@youtubeuniversity3638

4 ай бұрын

Children are better than debators, friend.

Fantastic to hear from the playbook again.

Just found your channel and it's so good!! Thanks for all the great content

@sapphiredragon114

3 ай бұрын

I don't see what all the rave is about with a channel that has bad ideas and pedals lies.

@javonjust9377

3 ай бұрын

​@@sapphiredragon114lies? Oh do tell

@sapphiredragon114

3 ай бұрын

@@javonjust9377 Calling Trump a racist

So to keep it short, modern debates are like playing Calvinball, you just have to decide you'll win and change the rules on the fly.

3:10 To be clear: volume in terms of both in-your-faceness (metaphorically "loud") and also quantity.

The rule is Andy wins! 😂 so good

@BagOfMagicFood

5 ай бұрын

But we can't just let the Wookiee win! Not anymore!

Hey, remember when the literal intro to this whole series stated that the best way to argue with a reactionary is DON'T This is one of the many, many reasons why, but it is a big one.

Love your takes. They always make so much sense and you make it easy for my dumbazz to grasp. Thank you!!!

I feel the need to ask now...WHAT DO WE DO?

@youtubeuniversity3638

4 ай бұрын

Stop debating and do another thing.

@shraka

4 ай бұрын

Honestly I think having a better ideology helps a lot. Liberalism (using the political philosophy / old school definition) is brain poison.

@kitwhitfield7169

4 ай бұрын

Focus on your own points and sell them directly to the audience. Say that these people want total control so they can line their own pockets and they’ll stop at nothing to get it, and then get people interested in how your plan can actually make things good for everyone.

@AdraTheGhost

4 ай бұрын

@kitwhitfield7169 will they believe us though?

@shraka

4 ай бұрын

@@AdraTheGhost no.

i love you innnuendo! i rewatched all your videos recently. It was a nice day. I particularly enjoyed some of the talks you gave that weren’t actually videos like this, actually. It’s nice seeing you on stage, it’s cool. happy to see new stuff from you! :)

Really interesting topic. I definitely have seen this in action without recognizing what it was. Might need to watch a few more times to fully understand

It’s similar to how a conservative will pay for someone they’re having an extramarital affair with to have an abortion; whilst still being publicly pro-life. “Rules for thee, but not for me.”

between this & TheraminTrees, i'm seeing that abuse is abuse, whether intimate, systemic, 1v1, multicast, etc. etc.

@Africa893

5 ай бұрын

theramintrees please come back...

@deadpoolj2278

5 ай бұрын

@@Africa893 he just put out a new video recently

@LimeyLassen

4 ай бұрын

TT is a YT OG

It’s also allied a fire hose of falsehoods

Very informative for the amount of time, but I miss the longer videos. Thank you though, I enjoy your perspective on your terms and it is not a comment on the quality nor a "dealbreaker", just a preference and opinion. You did those so well. :)

Great content. Please do a vid on countering these techniques