zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. germin+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-02-24 17:36:09
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.

replies(1): >>seneca+Jv
2. seneca+Jv[view] [source] 2021-02-24 19:55:01
>>germin+(OP)
> 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.

[go to top]