Golden Mean Fallacy: Difference between revisions

[[File:semicontrolled_demolitionsemicontrolled demolition.png|link=Xkcd|right]]

Most people know that there are two sides to every issue: their side, and the wrong side. Authors (and people in general) who subscribe to the [['''Golden Mean Fallacy]]''' have another outlook. They believe that there are in fact three sides: the side of the complete morons to the left of them, the side of the complete morons to the right of them, and their own side, which combines the good points of each in sublime harmony while avoiding all the bad. If one position is argued to be superior ''solely'' because it is in the middle, then this is the [[You Fail Logic Forever|logical fallacy]] of [[wikipedia:Argument to moderation|Argument to Moderation]].

The [['''Golden Mean Fallacy]]''' is turning both sides of an argument into [[Strawman Political|Strawman Politicals]]s and declaring that the only sensible approach is to take the middle road. There is a number of benefits to this - you avoid offending either side too much since they can each take comfort in the fact that their enemies get just as ridiculed as them, you get to come off as a sensible person who thinks for oneself and doesn't blindly follow any one party line, and you get twice as many people to insult and make fun of.

Another handy (and sneaky) thing with this method is that you don't actually have to be very moderate to use it. A [[Strawman Political]] is by definition hideously more extreme and unreasonable than any position in [[Real Life]] ,<ref>[[Poe's Law]] notwithstanding</ref>, so there is nothing stopping you from presenting a horrific parody of one side of the issue, then presenting a horrific parody of the other side of the issue, and finally presenting your own actual opinions as a moderate option. It will look very sane and reasonable in comparison, even if in [[Real Life]] it would be considered quite extremist. In fact, you can take this one step further: present a horrific parody of your own opinions and the ''unmodified'' opinions of those who oppose you; now not only is your actual opinion the sane and reasonable compromise, but your political enemies are irrational extremists! Is it any wonder this fallacy is so popular in politics?

'''HASTINGS'''. The Duke is very liberal.[[''Collects papers.'']]

** It also unintentionally illustrates how the [[Golden Mean Fallacy]] is frequently abused by people who are too lazy or cowardly to defend their own ideas. Say, for example, if you can just make everyone think that "their" beliefs are inherently wrong (like, say, [[Deliberately Bad Example|equating an opposing viewpoint to blending kittens]]), you don't have to explain why ''yours'' are right.

* ''[[South Park]]'' uses this trope a lot to deliver its message. [[Strawman Political|Strawman Politicals]]s from both sides clash and make the problem worse, until someone delivers a final speech concluding that neither side is correct. For example, we shouldn't support the Boy Scouts' decision to exclude membership to gays, but we also shouldn't try to bring down the organization because of the positive effect it continues to have on our youth. Sometimes, the solutions have been highly unconvincing compromises presented as perfect for everyone, giving rise to complaints that the makers try to force the trope. Through the show's many seasons, however, they have lampshaded and subverted the common formula a number of times.