If-by-whiskey (nonfiction): Difference between revisions
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 in which the speaker's position is contingent on the listener's opinion. | In political discourse, '''if-by-whiskey''' is a [[relativist fallacy (nonfiction)]] in which the speaker's position is contingent on the listener's opinion. | ||
== Description == | == Description == | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* [[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 18:01, 12 February 2016
In political discourse, if-by-whiskey is a relativist fallacy (nonfiction) in which the speaker's position is contingent on the listener's opinion.
Description
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).
Nonfiction cross-reference
Fiction cross-reference
External links
- If-by-whiskey @ Wikipedia