Universities should be places where the hard discussions can be had. Contentious issues are what Universities are made for… or at least what they were made for.
Once you meet the interloper please observe his tactics. He is attempting to provoke a reaction using mid level violence techniques. His goal, while completely discrediting himself, was to discourage debate. His asshollery was deliberate. Never give them what they want, as the goal of their ‘activism’ is your reaction.
It may be hard in the moment but let them be the clowns and disrupters – you keep your cool like the trio of Billboard Chris, Peter Boghossian and James did.
Who would have thought that denying reality in sports would make sports unfair. The days of bullshite openly on parade are quickly coming to close. Reality and female rights shall once again have their day in the sun, and not a moment too soon.
“A very common (and newly-named) informal rhetorical trick I’ve been observing, both online and in real life, is this one right here. The motte-and-bailey fallacy (also known as the ‘motte-and-bailey doctrine’). Although it is often found in arguments made by supporters of social justice, a lot of extremist ideologies also use it.
Effectively, it is bait-and-switch. Example:
Monique: All white people are racist.
Joshua: Why do you believe that, when you don’t know every white person nor their beliefs?
Monique: Well, when we say “all whites are racist”, what we really mean is, all whites are racially biased as a result of being brought up with certain beliefs in the context of a racialised society.
Ignore the lack of specificity in Monique’s argument for a moment. Notice what she does. She asserts a controversial position (the bailey), which is desired, but hard to defend. When Joshua challenges her, she retreats to a less controversial position (the motte), which is easier to defend, but undesired. She then attempts to equate the two positions to obscure the fact that her claim was effectively stepped down.
The power of this fallacy lies in the ability to defend a less controversial, or “weaker” position, while giving the impression that a “stronger”, or more controversial one, was defended instead.
Another example of bait-and-switch:
Tim: Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. If you believe that, then surely, you must be a feminist.
This is motte-and-bailey as well, but without the bailey at first – call it the ‘Hidden Bailey’ fallacy. Tim gives an uncontroversial position, and equates it with his ideology – feminism – which is actually more than is implied in that statement. Virtually everyone will agree that women are people, yet, other concepts in feminism – like patriarchy theory, rape culture, etc. are far more contested and may not be agreed upon by people who accept the first statement. Tim is baiting people into thinking they agree with him, only to switch to his real beliefs afterwards.”
Did you want to learn about the Motte and Bailey with further context of how it is being used to leverage specious ‘social justice’ claims in our society? Take a listen to the New Discourses podcast on the topic.
“Increasingly, Western societies – especially the English-speaking countries – are becoming two different peoples speaking two very different languages and believing in two modes of living. One camp believes in some form of objective truth and labels humans as either male or female. They acknowledge there are endless variations in the ways humans express themselves, but they are certain there are only two sexes. The concept of two sexes is so ancient and fundamental to our makeup as a species, we’re still wrapping our heads around having to verbalize what was always common sense. Defending the obvious is exhausting.
Clash of two camps: If universal truths are no longer recognized and everything is a “construct,” writes the author, society becomes increasingly divided even at the level of basic understanding and language. Shown are: (top) the 2023 Drag Up Fight Back protest, San Francisco, CA; (bottom) the meeting against minor children transgender policies, Vancouver, B.C. (Sources of photos: (top) Sheila Fitzgerald/Shutterstock; (bottom) EJ Nickerson/Shutterstock)
The other camp believes in a post-modernist version of constructed truth in which there are dozens of “fluid” genders that negate sex and biology. They also believe that anyone who does not subscribe to this belief is a heretic and as evil as a Nazi. They have the news and entertainment media, most of academia, much of the corporate world, and more and more of the state apparatus (from educational bureaucracies to human rights commissions) on their side.
How do these two camps speak to one another? The two belief systems require very different laws and social norms. If there are only two sexes, the man in my mother’s story is not allowed in the women’s changeroom. If sex is a social construct and can change through self-declaration or self-perception, that man can be a woman and is therefore allowed in the women’s changeroom. Right now, it seems the latter camp is winning and that we no longer share a common understanding of basic truths or even of language. Words like “man” or “woman” that were once universal are no longer.
A society that does not have a shared language cannot share thoughts. A society that is divided on whether or not there is objective truth, outside of personal feelings and emotions, cannot set laws or policies that work for the broadest range of people. A society where women and girls are cowed into silence when a crime is perpetrated against them for fear of being labelled the enemy is a shaky society indeed.”
What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…