Difference between revisions of "Moving the fulcrum"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (moved Moving the Fulcrum to Moving the fulcrum: technique names don't get capitalized) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[Moving the | + | <hide> |
| + | [[page type::article]] | ||
| + | [[thing type::rhetorical deception]] | ||
| + | [[use of::interpretive framing]] | ||
| + | [[category:rhetorical deceptions]] | ||
| + | </hide> | ||
| + | [[File:Idt20050613compromise.gif|thumb|The GOP claims an unreasonable position in order to persuade the Democrats to do what the GOP ''actually'' wants as a "compromise".]] | ||
| + | [[File:Negotiation-cartoon.jpg|thumb|The GOP [[moving the fulcrum|moves the fulcrum]] in order to [[interpretive framing|frame]] their ''actual'' position as a "compromise" between their (new) position and Obama's (new) position.]] | ||
| + | ==About== | ||
| + | [[Moving the fulcrum]] is a use of [[interpretive framing]] in which one party takes up an extreme position (which they do not actually hold) in order to convince a third party of the validity of their ''actual'' position. It generally depends upon the [[fallacy of moderation]] in order to succeed. | ||
==Definition== | ==Definition== | ||
| − | + | Say you have two people, '''A''' and '''B'''. '''A''' holds position '''P<sub>a</sub>''', '''B''' holds position '''P<sub>b</sub>'''. | |
* They are both trying to convince a third party, who is helping them resolve their dispute, of the validity of their positions. | * They are both trying to convince a third party, who is helping them resolve their dispute, of the validity of their positions. | ||
* '''A''' is honest, and directly argues the merits of '''P<sub>a</sub>'''. | * '''A''' is honest, and directly argues the merits of '''P<sub>a</sub>'''. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 16: | ||
* The third party agrees that "there are two sides to every story" and "where there's smoke there's fire", and suggests that both parties be reasonable and settle on position '''P<sub>b</sub>'''. | * The third party agrees that "there are two sides to every story" and "where there's smoke there's fire", and suggests that both parties be reasonable and settle on position '''P<sub>b</sub>'''. | ||
| − | Obviously this sort of argument wouldn't work if the facts were clear-cut; it's mainly useful in situations where | + | Obviously this sort of argument wouldn't work if the facts were clear-cut; it's mainly useful in situations where the best answer is perceived to be a matter of [[opinion]] or [[judgment]] (whether or not this is actually true). |
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
* '''In the News''' | * '''In the News''' | ||
** 2005-12-22 [http://www.participate.net/node/810 Banter over Bias Shields the Real Problem of the Media] by Timothy Karr | ** 2005-12-22 [http://www.participate.net/node/810 Banter over Bias Shields the Real Problem of the Media] by Timothy Karr | ||
* '''Humor''' | * '''Humor''' | ||
| − | ** ''I Drew This'' political cartoon: [http://idrewthis.org/ | + | ** ''I Drew This'' political cartoon: [http://idrewthis.org/d/20050613.html Compromise] |
Revision as of 18:36, 2 August 2013
The GOP moves the fulcrum in order to frame their actual position as a "compromise" between their (new) position and Obama's (new) position.
About
Moving the fulcrum is a use of interpretive framing in which one party takes up an extreme position (which they do not actually hold) in order to convince a third party of the validity of their actual position. It generally depends upon the fallacy of moderation in order to succeed.
Definition
Say you have two people, A and B. A holds position Pa, B holds position Pb.
- They are both trying to convince a third party, who is helping them resolve their dispute, of the validity of their positions.
- A is honest, and directly argues the merits of Pa.
- B, however, is less so, and instead of arguing Pb argues for an extreme position Pc, wherein a seemingly-reasonable "middle ground" between Pa and Pc would be approximately Pb.
- The third party agrees that "there are two sides to every story" and "where there's smoke there's fire", and suggests that both parties be reasonable and settle on position Pb.
Obviously this sort of argument wouldn't work if the facts were clear-cut; it's mainly useful in situations where the best answer is perceived to be a matter of opinion or judgment (whether or not this is actually true).
Links
- In the News
- 2005-12-22 Banter over Bias Shields the Real Problem of the Media by Timothy Karr
- Humor
- I Drew This political cartoon: Compromise