2 ms·
Perhaps, but I think that extends too much (nefarious) intentionality to it. This kind of discourse has decades of academic background, but has only been cultu
by germinalphrase 6y ago
Perhaps, but I think that extends too much (nefarious) intentionality to it.
This kind of discourse has decades of academic background, but has only been culturally prominent in recent years. I am more inclined to believe that most folks are just repeated poorly understood half knowledge than engaging in subtle logical gamesmanship like Motte/Bailey. The whole public conversation is at the “Expert Youtuber” phase of subtly and sophistication.
- seneca 6y ago> The whole public conversation is at the “Expert Youtuber” phase of subtly and sophistication. Ha, well said. > This kind of discourse has decades of academic background, but has only been culturally prominent in recent years. I am more inclined to believe that most folks are just repeated poorly understood half knowledge than engaging in subtle logical gamesmanship like Motte/Bailey. I don't disagree. Most of what we see is people regurgitating arguments they only tenuously grasp. I do believe the people initially generating those arguments are doing exactly as I described though. In fact, the first time I read about this concept it was from Nicholas Shackel (first described Motte and Bailey) showing Foucault using the tactic.