What is rhetorical hyperbole?

Rhetorical hyperbole:

1. A defense in law in cases of the tort of defamation.
2. My blog

Rhetoric is the "art of persuasive or impressive speaking or writing; language designed to persuade or impress." (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Sixth Edition.) In this sense, this blog is definitely rhetorical. I endeavour to persuade by presenting information, backed up by authoritative sources wherever I can, to inform and persuade. In general we are looking at social scientific issues. I'm afraid you will notice a somewhat liberal slant to the discussion: I find it much easier to find data to support a more progressive position than a conservative position. But I do try to look at issues from multiple, hopefully balanced, viewpoints, and to show understanding for other positions even when they are not supported by facts. Very often these positions derive from "common sense" which, as Duncan Watts demonstrates admirably in his book Everything is Obvious (Once You Know the Answer): How Common Sense Fails Us, is frequently derived from social norms or biases, or from faulty heuristics.
Hyperbole is a form of rhetoric, comprising "exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally." (ibid.). Thus the term rhetorical hyperbole is an oxymoron, but it has a nice ring to it which is why it is the name of this blog. (My parallel blog which concentrates more on matters of faith--Reflecture--has a similarly storied origin for its name.) In fact, hyperbole is something you are unlikely to find here. I avoid exaggeration (although my innate sarcasm will occasionally poke through) so that everything in this blog can be taken literally.
Rhetorical hyperbole is emotional, exaggerated name-calling that a reasonable person would not take as fact. Let's look at an example:
In the early 1980s, Campari ran a series of ads featuring celebrities (e.g. Jill St. John) talking about their "first time". The double entendre between first time sex and (the actual meaning) first time tasting Campari was intentional and obvious. On the inside front cover of Hustler Magazine's November 1983 issue appeared a parody of the ads, featuring Jerry Falwell's "first time".

Copying the form and layout of these Campari ads, Hustler's editors chose respondent as the featured celebrity and drafted an alleged "interview" with him in which he states that his "first time" was during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The Hustler parody portrays respondent and his mother as drunk and immoral, and suggests that respondent is a hypocrite who preaches only when he is drunk. In small print at the bottom of the page, the ad contains the disclaimer, "ad parody - not to be taken seriously." The magazine's table of contents also lists the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody." (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988))

Falwell sued Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt for defamation and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found for the respondents (Hustler/Flynt) on the charge of defamation: the ad clearly fell in the categories of rhetorical hyperbole and parody, and was thus immune from the need to demonstrate a factual basis for the claim that, for example, Falwell's first sexual encounter was with his mother in an outhouse outside Lynchburg, Virginia. But they found for the complainant on the emotional distress charge. On appeal the findings were upheld, and Hustler appealed to the Supreme Court. In a decision with no dissent, the court found--citing the First Amendment--that they could could not award damages for emotional distress since the definition of "outrageous" conduct was too open to jury members opinion in a case involving a prominent public figure like Jerry Falwell.
It is ironic that I write this on Tuesday, 8 November 2016--election day. This election has featured one candidate who has been routinely defamed with blatant untruths, and another who has threatened to sue almost everyone who has disagreed with him. (I warned you I would tend to lean liberal.) Let us hope that the coming year will see less rhetorical hyperbole in politics! In this blog, as in my vote, I will try to emphasize understanding and inclusiveness over anger, hate, and divisiveness.