Remember when you were a kid and you’d get into arguments with your friends that would go something like this:
“Am too!”
“Are not!”
“Am too!”
And remember how, much like Godwin’s Law, sooner or later one of you would eventually pull out the old, “Are not times infinity!”
Mathematically represented as: X = AN x I
This would then quickly be followed by “Are so times infinity plus one!”
Mathematically represented as: X = AS x I + 1
…which would then lead to a lengthy cycle of each party incrementally increasing the value added to infinity by one on each pass.
Most adults outgrow this level of argumentation. But there’s a whole subsection of the populace who never do. We call them denialists.
Denialists apply this sort of argument to explain away holes in their facts with conspiracy theories and then explain away plot holes in their conspiracy theories with even bigger conspiracies, only to explain away the larger plot holes in their larger conspiracies with even grander conspiracies well beyond the point where their claims become utterly unfalsifiable. And like a child, they’re willing to just keep incrementally adding to infinity until they wear down their opponent.
One classic example of this is the Gish Gallop, so named because it was so frequently used by a creationist named Duane Gish. The tactic involves…
…drowning one’s opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised, usually resulting in many involuntary twitches in frustration as the opponent struggles to decide where to start.
A more faithful interpretation of the Infinity + 1 tactic though is found in the conspiracy theory.
For instance, the typical 9/11 denier will start off by arguing that they’re just asking for a new investigation because there are just a few pieces of “the official story” that aren’t consistent and a few questions that need to be answered. Then when you start to challenge those alleged anomalies in the report, they reveal that it’s not just that there are holes in the report but that people are deliberately covering something up. And when you point out the implausibility of such a cover-up and the enormous number of people required to pull it off, it gets bigger again and now we’re talking about a full blown “9/11 was an inside job” by the Bush Administration. When you challenge the plausibility of a president deliberately killing 3000 of his own people, you’re told it was done to justify the Iraq War because of oil and in order to get the Patriot Act through Congress. When you point out the futility of that plan given Bush’s inevitable departure from office in 2008 and the gradual reversal of many of most alarming policies in the Patriot Act, you’re told that Bush and Obama are in it together and are both part of the evil New World Order conspiracy to control/kill/imprison us all. And when you point how how dissimilar the policies of Bush and Obama are, you’re told that politics are all just a massive distraction among many others in an elaborately organized system of control to keep us from learning “The Truth.”
And eventually the plot holes get so big that the denialist is up to Infinity + Infinity and somehow shape-shifting reptiles from outer space become the only plausible explanation to them for a few collapsed buildings.


[...] Infinity + 1 « Gotham Skeptic [...]
the end of atheism… good riddance
dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm
Regarding your “And when you point how how dissimilar the policies of Bush and Obama are”-statement I would like to point out that they are anything but dissimilar:
Obama subscribing to the Republican-invented myth of left-wing activist judges (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/30/obama/index.html)
Obama -like Bush- aggressively attacking those that disclose government wrong-doing (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/29/risen/index.html and http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/16/prosecutions/index.html and http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/01/nsa/index.html)
Obama preventing investigating possible war crimes by Bushco (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/09/johnsen/index.html and http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/iraq_video/index.html)
Obama -like Bush- feels privacy, and the assumption of innocence, is quaint (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/01/nsa/index.html)
Obama using propaganda to sell the War of Terror (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/27/afghanistan/index.html and http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/05/afghanistan/index.html)
Obama supporting the Bush-team invented idea that people, even US citizens, should be held indefinitely without trial, based solely on The Leader’s say-so(http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/22/detention/index.html and http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/31/gibbs/index.html)
Obama -like Bush- obstructing any thorough investigation of one of the most influential terrorist-attacks within the US (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/21/hatfill/index.html)
These are but a few examples, but you will agree that on almost every single topic Obama has embraced the policies we now ascribe to Bush. Should you need it I can of course provide the evidence to that observation.
I think you’re being awfully selective in your facts and leaving out an awful lot of nuance. While one is can find two men even more dissimilar from each other than these two, no reasonable person can deny that Bush and Obama have fundamentally different values and that many Obama Administration policy decisions are diametrically opposed to those of Bush.
“I think you’re being awfully selective in your facts and leaving out an awful lot of nuance.” Have you read the articles? I think you do, therefor answer me this:
1 Would you accept the fact that the examples given are correct, and in these areas Obama does not stray from the path laid out by Bush?
2 Would you care to provide examples of policies showing how Obama differs from the Bushteam?
Suggestion: what are Obama’s actions (as in: actions speak louder than words) on State Secrets, corporatism, closing Guantanamo Bay, prohibiting torture, protecting whistleblowers, increasing government transparancy (see State Secrets and whistleblowers!), to name but a few.
Come to think of it, let’s agree to disagree and close the OT subject. Sorry for hijacking your thread
Nescio, Having an informed argument/discussion, especially one in which you can offer resources, is always welcome on our blog (therefore is not hijacking). This particular argument probably will never be satisfied by the available resources, but we appreciate the effort and the critique