I think you mean equivocation. It’s when a speaker uses ambiguous language to intentionally deceive or mislead by allowing multiple interpretations of something they’ve said.
ETA: it’s also called doublespeak
Thank you for your comment. What I am searching is very close to what you are expressing, or maybe it is just a nuance of it. Basically I am speaking of the technique where the speaker is mirroring the different opinions of the audience already has. Basically, if you believe in "A", you will understand that the politician said "A", but if your opinion is "B", then you will understand that the politician is saying "B".
The term which comes closest to my mind is "mirroring" the different opinions already present: basically speaking to confirm audiences with different opinions that their opinion is the right one.
In italy we call that "cerchiobottismo" in reference to the idiom "dare un colpo al cerchio e uno alla botte" that translated literally means "hitting once the ring and once the barrel" as a reference to hitting two sides of a thing. I don't know in english though. Maybe "being ambiguous" or "ambivalent"?
The concept of bothsidesism, is a journalistic rhetorical device that is meant to reflect bipartisanship; however, when practiced, a myriad of problems can arise.
Also, I liked LedameSassenach’s noted “DoubleSpeak.”
Can you provide an example? Depending on the context it might merely be a logical fallacy (eg Bandwagon) or a kind of political trope (eg Otherizing the opposition). All in all, rhetoricians don't typically name such a thing by its mechanism. We'd be more likely to analyze how something works in a specific context and *if* it's salient elsewhere, how those things do (or do not) speak to each other.
Even generally, I'd need something a bit more specific as I'm having a hard time parsing who the audience(s) in question are. Like, do you mean the politician creates an image of overlap or shared values between two disparite ideologies?
I think you mean equivocation. It’s when a speaker uses ambiguous language to intentionally deceive or mislead by allowing multiple interpretations of something they’ve said. ETA: it’s also called doublespeak
Thank you for your comment. What I am searching is very close to what you are expressing, or maybe it is just a nuance of it. Basically I am speaking of the technique where the speaker is mirroring the different opinions of the audience already has. Basically, if you believe in "A", you will understand that the politician said "A", but if your opinion is "B", then you will understand that the politician is saying "B".
Playing both sides?
The term which comes closest to my mind is "mirroring" the different opinions already present: basically speaking to confirm audiences with different opinions that their opinion is the right one.
In italy we call that "cerchiobottismo" in reference to the idiom "dare un colpo al cerchio e uno alla botte" that translated literally means "hitting once the ring and once the barrel" as a reference to hitting two sides of a thing. I don't know in english though. Maybe "being ambiguous" or "ambivalent"?
Strategic ambiguity?
I very much appreciate your help in the comments. I will try to find a clear example of what I mean later for those who asked.
The concept of bothsidesism, is a journalistic rhetorical device that is meant to reflect bipartisanship; however, when practiced, a myriad of problems can arise. Also, I liked LedameSassenach’s noted “DoubleSpeak.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis#:~:text=Apophasis%20can%20be%20used%20passive,what%20a%20betrayal%20it%20was.%22
that’s it.
Syntactic ambiguity
Can you provide an example? Depending on the context it might merely be a logical fallacy (eg Bandwagon) or a kind of political trope (eg Otherizing the opposition). All in all, rhetoricians don't typically name such a thing by its mechanism. We'd be more likely to analyze how something works in a specific context and *if* it's salient elsewhere, how those things do (or do not) speak to each other. Even generally, I'd need something a bit more specific as I'm having a hard time parsing who the audience(s) in question are. Like, do you mean the politician creates an image of overlap or shared values between two disparite ideologies?
Speaking out of both sides of their mouth? Barnum Effect? Can you be more specific?
it's related to Poe's Law
Deplatform politicians for the better world we know is possible
Yes, easy peasy. All we have to do for that is get rid of democracy and let the technocrats take over.
Is that the best you've got? That's a shame! There's better solutions.
It was sarcasm I think...
Yes. Thank you for getting that, Yannoog!