Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

When a person makes a bunch of points, there is nothing wrong with addressing each point.

There is if you don't make a coherent counter argument, or fail to recognize the point. If a point is made in a couple of sentences, and you respond separately to each sentence, I'd say you missed the point, and muddled the discussion.

Well, if you're suggesting I did not make a coherent counter-argument, I think you're wrong. The only way to get to that is to take an argument that I made, and explain why it lacks coherence. In what way? Was it internally inconsistent? Did the logic not follow? Are the premises false? Something else?

And, I do not think I failed to recognize the point. That being said, when I think someone has missed a point I tried to make, I don't bitch at them and merely sling insults or criticize their posting style - I say "hey, I think you missed my point - here's the point I think you missed: [try to highlight it, or restate it clearly, or in a different way]. I.e. - state for me one point made that you think I missed.

And, it's not gish galloping to address a series of arguments or factual claims someone raises.

No, it's known as fisking, and it's usually more annoying than effective. After a few exchanges, the conversation becomes difficult to follow, a tangle of quotes. Of course, your response still could be a gish gallop, but fisking is far worse than any gish gallop.

Well, I addressed the separate points to clearly isolate the point I'm addressing. If someone is making an argument and there is a statement made on which the argument is based which is incorrect, I clear way to show that is to address it via a quote and response.

You can post how you want. I think when multiple points are made, it's better to address them point by point. I don't agree with leaving it all in a long narrative, because then some points that can be refuted get lost in the murk of a longer narrative. Some people intend that to be the case - bury a weak point, so that it isn't refuted.

Aside from being widely considered rude, it's lousy writing. The Chicago Manual of Style condemns fisking as "a verbal format more suited to the large primate house than a newspaper," and both Gore Vidal and George Saunders have penned satirical essays lampooning it.

This isn't a newspaper, it's a forum, and fisking is not considered rude per se. Now, if fisking is done with flaming or handwaving, then it's considered poor form, yes, but that's not what I do. What I do is carefully address the actual point made in a rational and logical way. That's not in the least considered rude. It's very common discussion forum practice. I learned it from others way back in the Dawkins (old) forum days, and I've seen it used commonly here by others (without the lectures you're giving me here), on Rational Skepticism, and several other forums.

Heck, even Robert Fisk, who helped popularize fisking and gave it his name, regrets his involvement in "lowering civil discourse to the level of haphazard noise." But there's a darker side to fisking. It's been implicated in cognitive decline, and correlates strongly with borderline personality disorder, according to a series of studies conducted by the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology. An early form of the technique was an integral part of Nazi propaganda, and the Defense Intelligence Agency listed it as one of the characteristics by which to identify Russian Facebook trolls. Given it's cognitive impact, they suspect the intent is to diminish Facebook users critical thinking skills. Deputy Director Melissa Drisko said, "Russian use of subliminally damaging patterns of online discourse...may be the black swan of cyber warfare tactics." To top it all off, researchers at the Bonn University Institute of Psychology have found troubling signs that writers who fisk can develop nystagmus, a neurological disorder leading to uncontrolled eye movement and reduced vision. Really Forty Two, maybe you shouldn't be so enthusiastic in slicing the salami.

Now you've gone plaid. Look - fisking is called fisking because 15 years ago (give or take) Robert Fisk used to be deservedly "fisked" by people all the time -- i.e., have his articles or blog posts dismantled point by point.

Regarding your allegations that people who address arguments on forum message boards through point by point quoting and responding are suffering from some sort of psychological disorder, or risking coming down with neurological disorders, or are Nazis or Russians -- I think I'll just leave that there for everyone's reading pleasure. A more absurd set of claims (obviously copied or lifted from somewhere, but not cited) is hard to imagine. Good show, boy, good show!

Remember that, folks - if you address another person's post point by point, carefully attempting to address or refute them, you are borderline personality, suffering from a neurological disorder, or using Nazi and Russian troll tactics.

The salami is the gish gallop.

You're implying the post is a gish gallop. That's pretty cheeky for a simile, and makes me suspect you don't know what a gish gallop is.

A gish gallop is an argument technique generally defined as the use of a series of arguments or points made in one go, designed to overwhelm the opposition.

If I am taking someone else's post, and quoting it point by point, and responding point by point, I'm not engaging in the gish gallop. That's not to say the other person must be - but if anyone is, the original poster who made a series of points would be the gish galloper. Responding to a gish gallop point by point is not itself a gish gallop, and neither is responding to a series of points made.

Addressing each point by slicing the salami so as to address arguments seriatum is not the gish gallop.

This can be done just as well with a single reply at the end, and an extended exchange is much easier to follow, like a series of letters. If you will note, the forum software supports this style of exchange pretty well.

It also supports the quote/response/quote/response style, and this forum has been around a while. I did not invent that manner of response. And, frankly, your opinion on how I should post is noted. Your view of it quite nice, and I appreciate your kind suggestions. I'll also be contemplating seeing a psychiatrist to get on my psychotropic meds, as well as making sure I'm checked for neurological disorders. Can't be too careful.

It's meeting the each argument or factual claim head on.

What is the "it" you refer to here? The salami or the gish gallop?

Fair question. "Addressing each point by slicing the salami..." was the "it." In case you missed the point, the point was that addressing each ponit by slicing the salami was not a gish gallop. Addressing each point by slicing the salami is meeting each argument or factual claim head on. I'm glad I could clarify that for you.

[Joe]

When a person makes a bunch of points, there is nothing wrong with addressing each point.

There is if you don't make a coherent counter argument, or fail to recognize the point. If a point is made in a couple of sentences, and you respond separately to each sentence, I'd say you missed the point, and muddled the discussion.

Well, if you're suggesting I did not make a coherent counter-argument, I think you're wrong. The only way to get to that is to take an argument that I made, and explain why it lacks coherence. In what way? Was it internally inconsistent? Did the logic not follow? Are the premises false? Something else?

And, I do not think I failed to recognize the point. That being said, when I think someone has missed a point I tried to make, I don't bitch at them and merely sling insults or criticize their posting style - I say "hey, I think you missed my point - here's the point I think you missed: [try to highlight it, or restate it clearly, or in a different way]. I.e. - state for me one point made that you think I missed.

And, it's not gish galloping to address a series of arguments or factual claims someone raises.

No, it's known as fisking, and it's usually more annoying than effective. After a few exchanges, the conversation becomes difficult to follow, a tangle of quotes. Of course, your response still could be a gish gallop, but fisking is far worse than any gish gallop.

Well, I addressed the separate points to clearly isolate the point I'm addressing. If someone is making an argument and there is a statement made on which the argument is based which is incorrect, I clear way to show that is to address it via a quote and response.

You can post how you want. I think when multiple points are made, it's better to address them point by point. I don't agree with leaving it all in a long narrative, because then some points that can be refuted get lost in the murk of a longer narrative. Some people intend that to be the case - bury a weak point, so that it isn't refuted.

Aside from being widely considered rude, it's lousy writing. The Chicago Manual of Style condemns fisking as "a verbal format more suited to the large primate house than a newspaper," and both Gore Vidal and George Saunders have penned satirical essays lampooning it.

This isn't a newspaper, it's a forum, and fisking is not considered rude per se. Now, if fisking is done with flaming or handwaving, then it's considered poor form, yes, but that's not what I do. What I do is carefully address the actual point made in a rational and logical way. That's not in the least considered rude. It's very common discussion forum practice. I learned it from others way back in the Dawkins (old) forum days, and I've seen it used commonly here by others (without the lectures you're giving me here), on Rational Skepticism, and several other forums.

Heck, even Robert Fisk, who helped popularize fisking and gave it his name, regrets his involvement in "lowering civil discourse to the level of haphazard noise." But there's a darker side to fisking. It's been implicated in cognitive decline, and correlates strongly with borderline personality disorder, according to a series of studies conducted by the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology. An early form of the technique was an integral part of Nazi propaganda, and the Defense Intelligence Agency listed it as one of the characteristics by which to identify Russian Facebook trolls. Given it's cognitive impact, they suspect the intent is to diminish Facebook users critical thinking skills. Deputy Director Melissa Drisko said, "Russian use of subliminally damaging patterns of online discourse...may be the black swan of cyber warfare tactics." To top it all off, researchers at the Bonn University Institute of Psychology have found troubling signs that writers who fisk can develop nystagmus, a neurological disorder leading to uncontrolled eye movement and reduced vision. Really Forty Two, maybe you shouldn't be so enthusiastic in slicing the salami.

Now you've gone plaid. Look - fisking is called fisking because 15 years ago (give or take) Robert Fisk used to be deservedly "fisked" by people all the time -- i.e., have his articles or blog posts dismantled point by point.

Regarding your allegations that people who address arguments on forum message boards through point by point quoting and responding are suffering from some sort of psychological disorder, or risking coming down with neurological disorders, or are Nazis or Russians -- I think I'll just leave that there for everyone's reading pleasure. A more absurd set of claims (obviously copied or lifted from somewhere, but not cited) is hard to imagine. Good show, boy, good show!

Remember that, folks - if you address another person's post point by point, carefully attempting to address or refute them, you are borderline personality, suffering from a neurological disorder, or using Nazi and Russian troll tactics.

The salami is the gish gallop.

You're implying the post is a gish gallop. That's pretty cheeky for a simile, and makes me suspect you don't know what a gish gallop is.

A gish gallop is an argument technique generally defined as the use of a series of arguments or points made in one go, designed to overwhelm the opposition.

If I am taking someone else's post, and quoting it point by point, and responding point by point, I'm not engaging in the gish gallop. That's not to say the other person must be - but if anyone is, the original poster who made a series of points would be the gish galloper. Responding to a gish gallop point by point is not itself a gish gallop, and neither is responding to a series of points made.

Addressing each point by slicing the salami so as to address arguments seriatum is not the gish gallop.

This can be done just as well with a single reply at the end, and an extended exchange is much easier to follow, like a series of letters. If you will note, the forum software supports this style of exchange pretty well.

It also supports the quote/response/quote/response style, and this forum has been around a while. I did not invent that manner of response. And, frankly, your opinion on how I should post is noted. Your view of it quite nice, and I appreciate your kind suggestions. I'll also be contemplating seeing a psychiatrist to get on my psychotropic meds, as well as making sure I'm checked for neurological disorders. Can't be too careful.

It's meeting the each argument or factual claim head on.

What is the "it" you refer to here? The salami or the gish gallop?

Fair question. "Addressing each point by slicing the salami..." was the "it." In case you missed the point, the point was that addressing each ponit by slicing the salami was not a gish gallop. Addressing each point by slicing the salami is meeting each argument or factual claim head on. I'm glad I could clarify that for you.

Thank you for illustrating how ugly a series of point by point exchanges can become. The above is a mess, and were I to respond in kind it would grow even more muddled. I appreciate you playing along so graciously, and am glad you enjoyed my little gish gallop on fisking. You gave it a good try at a point by point response before giving up.

[Cunt]

How long before the hate laws spawn similar, but vaguer, disgust laws?

[Brian Peacock]

About three months?




Did I win a prize?

[Cunt]

I guess we'll see in about three months.

[pErvinalia]

[JimC]

[Brian Peacock]

I din't get it Why have all those Chinese kids blacked up?

[Forty Two]

Saying "women don't have penises." Very problematic. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/h ... e-penises/

Removed as president-elect of the Humanist Students society, and removed as editor of a philosophy journal, and as an editor for a student magazine.

Well, we know where Cypriot immigrants sit on the Progressive Stack, lol.

[Svartalf]

The PC brigade had another fit of the Stupids

[Sean Hayden]

Most women don't have penises. --problem solved, or no?

[Svartalf]

well a creature sporting a dick might have trouble to truthfully and believably claim to be a woman

[Forty Two]

Most women don't have penises. --problem solved, or no?

I don't know, actually. Would the people who are outraged to the point of wanting to drive a Cypriot immigrant (irrelevant feature) from various on-campus positions because he uttered the phrase "women don't have penises," find it acceptable if he said "most women don't have penises?" I'm not positive about that. The term "most" implies it's the norm or normal for women not to have penises, and as Anne Hathaway pointed out it implies to them that other genders orbit around cisgender, and that's transphobic to them. So, it's not at all clear that rephrasing it like you did would, in fact, "solve the problem" (meaning "be acceptable to those finding the other phrasing objectionable.")

Also, I'm not in favor of granting various groups social veto power over people's political opinions. They are, of course, free to organize their private clubs how they like, but (if that's the way the persons objecting to the Cypriot's statement want to approach it...) I'd recommend that the membership of those private clubs act to reinstate the terminated Cypriot immigrant, and if the organizations refuse to do so, then I would be in favor of folks sending a message that this kind of behavior is not tolerated (and that they support the Cypriot student) by a mass exodus and boycott of the organizations in question.

If they want to take to the next level, they could make sure that anyone who would drive a person off campus and terminate them from their editorial jobs and school extracurricular activities for making this kind of statement should not find any peace until they reinstate - which means if they are sighted at lunch, at any local establishment/bar/restaurant, or at the laundromat or in the mall, they would be hounded and told to get out and they aren't welcome there and their employers should fire them for holding the views they hold. Anyone who would drive a student out of a philosophy magazine and other student group for making this statement deserves to be driven out of their private organizations, employers, student groups, and such, and maybe restaurants, hotels, and other places of public accommodation, until they change their ways.....?

[Forty Two]

well a creature sporting a dick might have trouble to truthfully and believably claim to be a woman

[laklak]

Nothing is going to change because everybody is shit scared. One slip of the tongue and you're toast, lose your job, your friends, your reputation, everything. The yammering hordes will descend on your social media and cut you to ribbons. They'll picket your workplace because you don't think a particular political cartoon is racist or sexist or whatthefuckist or you posted something on FB they disagree with. Fee Fees are REAL, y'all.

This only matters if you give a fuck, though. Not giving a fuck is the way forward, but unfortunately that's not an option for most people who still have to earn a living. Now, we retired bastards are in a much better position to not give a fuck, I highly recommend it to everyone. "Go fuck yourself" is a useful response to pretty much any situation, I find. Plus they get really, really pissed off. Just make sure you have your Sig P229 within reach, because they can pack up like coyotes.