this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
172 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4559 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A dishonest creationist debating tactic shouldn’t go unchallenged in American life. Or in national politics

June’s fateful Biden vs. Trump debate led not just to the sudden ascension of Vice President Kamala Harris as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Donald Trump’s performance also saw the return of a familiar tactic in American public discourse, the “Gish gallop”—an avalanche of nonsense presented as fact—on the debate stage. A favorite of creationists, the gallop’s trot into the political arena needs calling out as we head into the home stretch of the 2024 election.

Coined by the National Center for Science Education’s founding director Eugenie Scott in 1994, the Gish gallop takes its name from the creationist Duane Gish, who frequently challenged biologists to debates about evolution. His tactic consisted of talking fast and with confidence, bombarding opponents with falsehoods, non-sequiturs and enough cherry-picked factoids to confuse the audience. Scientists debating him faced the challenge of sifting half-truths from outright lies and finding the right evidence to refute them systematically, all within the few minutes allowed in response. Which effectively meant that when the bell went off, the Gish gallop left the scientist “stumped” and Gish declaring victory for creationism. Such a spectacle leaves the audience less informed than they were before the debate, all at the hands of a debater whose only goal is to discredit their opponent and “win” the debate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 29 points 2 months ago

Also known as con-artist tactics