Today we have Ethics Alarms’ first retroactive commenter banning! That’s historic, and so, by the current rules of Bonkers Left cant, it must be a wonderful thing.
In this post I took issue with “The Ethicist’s” assertion that one was obligated to reveal a secret to the one person whose life and relationships were likely to be upended by being informed of it because “the truth belongs to her.” The comment thread that followed featured the objections to my analysis by debuting commenter “Brandy,” whom, I discerned, was hostile to your host from the minute she appeared, but obviously thoughtful and intelligent if unconvincing on this particular issue.
“People have a fundamental right to know the truth about themselves, even if painful” was the entire thrust of her argument, which is just another way of saying “the truth belongs to her.” I also am dubious when anyone asserts a new “fundamental right.” I think Tom nailed the fundamental rights in his masterpiece, and this particular proposed addition undercuts the “pursuit of happiness” rather considerably. We have a right to be made miserable for no good reason?
But I digress. At one point in our exchange, Brandy called my argument a “Gish Gallup.” I had never heard or read that label before—the only Gishes I was aware ofwere Lillian, the silent movie star, Dorothy, her sister, and unfortunate Annabelle, whose intended star vehicle (“Mystic Pizza’) that was supposed to make her the latest famous Gish instead made Julia Roberts a star, while Annabelle was henceforward condemned to supporting roles and horror movies.
So I asked Brandy what a “Gish gallop’ was, a question she did not answer. However, after seeing the phrase for the second time on another site, I looked to up. Here’s the story (via Wikipedia);
The term “Gish gallop” was coined in 1994 by the anthropologist Eugenie Scott who named it after the American creationist Duane Gish, dubbed the technique’s “most avid practitioner.”The Gish gallop 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. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper’s arguments at the expense of their quality.
During a typical Gish gallop, the galloper confronts an opponent with a rapid series of specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations and outright lies, making it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of the debate. Each point raised by the Gish galloper takes considerably longer to refute than to assert. The technique wastes an opponent’s time and may cast doubt on the opponent’s debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved, or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics. The difference in effort between making claims and refuting them is known as Brandolini’s law or informally “the bullshit asymmetry principle”. Another example is firehose of falsehoods….
Ah! So Brandy, failing to coherently refute my argument, was calling me a bad faith blooger and a liar. Nice! Also: BYE! The EA commenting rules do not give commenters leave to impugn me in that manner. I may not always express my points perfectly (and when I do, there are likely to be typos), but I do not lie or set out to use unfair debate tactics, and, as I state in the Comment Rules, when I do cross an ethical line, I will apologize for it.
In addition, Brandy used the insult incorrectly. A Gish Gallup only can be used orally, in a verbal debate. Written arguments cannot “overwhelm” a competent critic, as I and others on this site prove regularly when we fisk unethical articles, op eds or essays.
Accusing me of a “Gish Gallup” in a comment thread means,”I don’t have the wit or ammunition to argue with you, so instead I’m going to call your points dishonest without raising any viable rebuttal other than “you’re wrong.”
Brandy did make some substantive arguments, and there is some evidence that she didn’t know what “Gish Gallup” meant. Therefore a nicely worded, sincere apology promising never to similarly impugn this ethicist’s ethics will result in her reinstatement.
And I’m grateful for learning a new term.
Ethics Alarms 
I think you can Gish Gallop in written form depending on the format (especially a discussion board like this).
People only have some much time to focus on any topic and eventually will move on when presented with too much to handle or care about.
There’s a weakness also in written Gish gallops not present in verbal- the same time constraints that cause responders to move on will often cause readers to move on and not even see the litany of specious arguments.
I would submit also that this is a type of Gish Gallop:
In any given written discussion – sometimes a commenter may leave a list of instances, events, anecdotes, etc as a “proof” of sorts for an argument they made or as a refutation of an argument made by someone else.
When confronted with the need to expand on that list in order to support their original assertion or original objection, the commenter providing the list will often respond “It’s not my job to do your homework”,” or “you have Google also”.
But complex issues require complex arguments. No doubt, lots of readers don’t have time to respond in detail to a topic (but we know many who do), but that doesn’t make incomplete responses better than more thorough ones. Also, “Gish Gallop” means that the arguments are weak and disingenuous. If you can flood a dissenter with legitimate facts and arguments, that suggests a stronger position.
The point is no one knows they are legitimate because it’s a flood that can’t be responded to.
“Can’t” doesn’t mean “I don’t want to take the time to do it.” In oral debates under formal rules, there really are time limits, and that’s why the “Gallup” is considered unethical. In written form, the only clock is what each individual commenter chooses to use.
I don’t know.
I have a full time job. I also have a family. I have non-work obligations. Arguing on the internet is something I do not have infinite time available to approach even when I devote some time to it.
In many instances, people actually *cannot* whether or not they theoretically *could* as long as everything in life must be prioritized.
Gish gallop in writing has to be a flood of data points or flood of claims with little explication.
[As usual, a banned commenter given the chance to be reinstated is choosing to bicker. I’m leaving the shell of this unauthorized comment so a response won’t disappear with it, but remember: don’t waste time replying to banned commenters, because when their comments go, so do your replies.]
I just read y’all’s back and forth on the other discussion. I don’t think you were flooded with anything you couldn’t reasonably respond to with the information at hand.
I read the thread as it happened. It seemed that you were talking . . . erm . . . writing . . . past each other.
As a veteran commenter here, I bleive that our intrepid Ethics Alarms Moderator takes what he does seriously and firmly believes that he is providing a vital social service by calling out matters involving ethical breaches. He does and is and, while I may not agree with some positions, I can never assert that Jack is not thoughtful in his posts or his replies. He can be blunt, which I think is appropriate: this is his blog and he gets to set and enforce the rules; but, he is fair and encourages spirited debate. I do like that he does not suffer ad hominem attacks lightly.
In that respect, I suggest that you keep your attacks on him to the issues and do not make the personal or insulting. Jack will not tolerate and nor should he.
jvb
I agree. I did not jump into that fray at the time because I thought they were arguing over inconsistent first principles.
I do not think there is a “right” answer to the question, simply because, as illustrated by Brandy and some of the other commenters, the right answer depends on the ignorant person’s desires.
You can’t really answer the question decisively; you can only clarify the issue, which I thought their exchange accomplished.
-Jut
In one of her spammed post-ban comments, BB mentioned that Althouse doesn’t ban commenters. Althouse bans comments, not commenters: I started with that practice and decided that it was too restrictive. Althouse also almost never replies to a comment, and the blog discourages arguments between commenters. Almost every comment is a stand-alone: long posts are clearly moderated out.
Ann is welcome to run her blog the way she chooses.
I think the comments here are stronger, certainly on a percentage basis.
Jack,
As far as the “can’t” vs. “don’t want to take the time,” goes, the relevant concept is Brandolini’s law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
In short form: it takes much time and effort to refute bullshit than it does to spout it.
-Jut
Further justifying your ban here.
[As usual, a banned commenter given the chance to be reinstated is choosing to bicker. I’m leaving the shell of this unauthorized comment so a response won’t disappear with it, but remember: don’t waste time replying to banned commenters, because when their comments go, so do your replies.]
You accused the moderator and owner of this site of a cheap debate trick based on your first interaction with him.
You absolutely can Gish Gallop in written form.
A benefit to electronic court filings is that it cuts down on the amount of paper needed to file things in court. For instance, in Harris County, Texas, you had to take an original and two copies of all lawsuits filed, plus a copy for each party involved. That meant a lawsuit had one original pleading and four copies, assuming one opposing party. Now, I prepare my lawsuit or pleading, electronically file it with the court and by some efiling magic, it gets served on everyone on the service list. It has cut down on tons of paper costs, standing at copy machines (which invariably jams right in the middle of your copying job requiring you to start over or from where the jam occurred if you can figure it our, after a string of expletives, etc.), and generally has made life easier.
It does have its drawbacks though: I am working on a case – well, cases, actually – involving a most vexatious individual who has nothing better to do with her time then file lawsuits against everyone trying to get a free house.. Her tactic is to file a lawsuit and immediately flood the court with volumes of filings, motions, responses, replies, objections, etc., all consisting of misstatements of facts or objectively clear documents, filled mountains of mostly irrelevant exhibits and trial transcripts, with illiterate and/or incoherent arguments, ad hominem attacks on your humble commenter, and other nonsense. As an attorney, I have to read that shit.
I do like the “Asymmetry Bullshit Principle” though. I might use it next time.
jvb
I am also grateful for learning the new term. My father-in-law is a firm proponent of the “gish-gallop”. He regularly drags people into debates they were unprepared for, hits them with multiple arguments (again, that the target was unprepared to discuss) and interrupts any counter-arguments with more arguments. It is very frustrating, makes the target feel ignorant and unintelligent and is unavoidable no matter how you attempt to avoid it.
I have actually researched many of his “facts” after one of these debates and found them to be either incorrect or out-of-context, but long after the debate is over and the damage is done.
I have to laugh at this. Anyone who has ever been here any length of time knows better than to just be a straight dick to the host. Brandy also now knows, to her woe.
When I had a blog, I took a very similar tack — I would warn and eventually ban anyone who was abusive of… well, anyone, even rival team supporters who were there in good faith disagreement. Abuse of rhetoric, especially in bad faith, was always punished at some level.
Unlike you, though, I had help enforcing our clearly written and longstanding guidelines, so I could afford to give them a bit more rope until they inevitably hung themselves.
Also and finally, my experience with apologies is that offenders will virtually always re-offend after reinstatement. Once I learned that (and it took years), I refused to waste my time worrying about it.