If-by-whiskey

In political discourse, if-by-whiskey is a relativist fallacy where the response to a question is contingent on the questioner's opinions and use of dysphemisms and euphemisms (e.g. "terrorist" as dysphemism and "freedom fighter" as euphemism). An if-by-whiskey argument appears to affirm both sides of an issue, and agrees with whichever side the questioner supports.

Canonical example

The label "if-by-whiskey" refers to a 1952 speech by Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr., a young lawmaker from the U.S. state of Mississippi, on the subject of whether Mississippi should prohibit or legalize alcoholic beverages:

Columnist William Safire popularized the term in his column in The New York Times, but wrongly attributed it to Florida Governor Fuller Warren.

When it isn't a fallacy

The if-by-whiskey fallacy is different from an acknowledgment that both sides of a debate may have merit. A speaker can make the point that, for example, dissent should not be labeled good or bad per se – it depends on the context. Consider the following statement:

If by dissension you mean peaceful opposition to unjust laws, then I am for it; but if by dissension you mean violent opposition to all law, then I am against it.

References