39,327
edits
Golden Mean Fallacy: Difference between revisions
m
Mass update links
m (remove unneccessary quote box template) |
m (Mass update links) |
||
Line 10:
The [[Golden Mean Fallacy]] is turning both sides of an argument into [[Strawman Political|Strawman Politicals]] 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>[[
The technique is known among American political strategists as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window the Overton Window].
Line 20:
Compare [[Stupid Neutral]]. Contrast with [[Take a Third Option]] and [[Both Sides Have a Point]]. Named for [[Aristotle (Creator)|Aristotle]]'s concept of virtue, which presented the golden mean as the excellent ideal of behavior. (Obviously, he didn't consider it a fallacy. Aristotle's golden mean also often ''did'' lean slightly towards excess or deficiency, rather than being precisely in the middle, and varied from situation to situation.)
{{examples
== Anime and Manga ==
Line 136:
* This can be a problem in wikis ([[Repeatedly Used On This Very Wiki|just like the one you're reading!]]) - two opposed people get in an [[Edit War]], and the only ways to appease them both are (a) come up with something halfway between the two, or (b) have the article [[Conversation On the Main Page|contradict itself]].
** Or you could [[Take a Third Option|delete everything they both wrote and make someone else write the article]].
*** [[Self
**** This suggests that presenting two incompatible yet internally-consistent positions is an example of the fallacy. Simply not expressing a preference is necessary for journalistic and academic objectivity. Let readers come to their own conclusions and take their critical rebuttal elsewhere.
***** [[Overly Long Gag|I suggest that we, rather than determine the reader's conclusions or let them choose their own, merely influence them, and allow part of the critical rebuttal here, but not all of it.]]
* During the 2008 American presidential election, John McCain was all "Drill Baby Drill" and [[Barack Obama]] was more on the side of developing alternate energy. So Paris Hilton (who McCain had negatively namechecked in an ad saying Obama was a celebrity like her) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySc12uzoxqU appeared in a fake commercial] saying basically, "why not do a little of both? Develop new energy, but in the meantime drill now." [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irKZV2JYJOE This was actually thought to be a good idea by some], and showcased Hilton's [[Buffy
* The centrist Democratic Leadership Council, who have infamously fashioned themselves as a [[Take a Third Option|third way]].
* The Republican Main Street Partnership and Republican Leadership Council, easily.
Line 159:
* Whenever Canadian policymakers refer to a "uniquely Canadian" or "made in Canada" solution to a problem (which they do [[Insistent Terminology|all the freaking time]]), it essentially means somewhere between a U.S. and EU approach, even if one approach or the other might very well be preferable.
* Sales. You think it's worth $30, they say it's worth $100, but it's <ref>perpetually</ref> on sale for $60! Heck, that's less than the mean. Given the proliferation of this tactic, it seems to work.
* An any internet forum discussing [[Flame Bait|religion]], (and by "discussing", we of course mean [[
** It's called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution theistic evolution,] and it isn't necessarily this trope - belief in evolution is not related to religious belief. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope (with his, y'know, 2.1 billion followers) both support evolution. Theistic evolution is not so much an attempt to reconcile both factions but an updating of religious positions that takes into account advances in science.
*** Creationists and Atheists are still likely to see Theistic Evolution as an example of this trope. The atheists claim that to say that evolution is guided is to miss the point. Creationists say that to interpret the Bible (Or Torah or Koran) as speaking anyway other than literally is heresy. While theistic evolution is not always a case of the golden mean (Many theistic evolutionists simply see evolution as the process god used), opponents on each side see these people as trying to have it both ways.
| |||