If-by-whiskey (nonfiction): Difference between revisions

From Gnomon Chronicles
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
In political discourse, '''if-by-whiskey''' is a [[relativist fallacy (nonfiction)|relativist fallacy]] in which the speaker's position is contingent on the listener's opinion.
In political discourse, '''if-by-whiskey''' is a relativist fallacy in which the speaker's position is contingent on the listener's opinion.


An if-by-whiskey argument implemented through doublespeak appears to affirm both sides of an issue, and agrees with whichever side the listener supports, in effect taking a position without taking a position.
An if-by-whiskey argument implemented through doublespeak appears to affirm both sides of an issue, and agrees with whichever side the listener supports, in effect taking a position without taking a position.
Line 13: Line 13:


* [[One If By Whiskey, Two If By God (nonfiction)]]
* [[One If By Whiskey, Two If By God (nonfiction)]]
* [[Relativist fallacy (nonfiction)]]


== Fiction cross-reference ==
== Fiction cross-reference ==

Revision as of 10:22, 25 June 2016

In political discourse, if-by-whiskey is a relativist fallacy in which the speaker's position is contingent on the listener's opinion.

An if-by-whiskey argument implemented through doublespeak appears to affirm both sides of an issue, and agrees with whichever side the listener supports, in effect taking a position without taking a position.

The statement typically uses words with strongly negative or positive connotations (e.g., terrorist as negative and freedom fighter as positive).

In the News

Nonfiction cross-reference

Fiction cross-reference

External links: