motte-and-bailey argument

Also called the motte-and-bailey fallacy. A sort of rhetorical bait-and-switch where one puts forward a controversial point, then claims that they're actually arguing something far less controversial if challenged. This is often done by giving something an agreeable name (e.g., claiming that people who oppose Black Lives Matter the group oppose black lives mattering as a basic concept).

First coined by the philosopher Nicholas Shackel in 2005 and popularized by Star Slate Codex in 2014. Named after a style of medieval castle, where the hillfort (motte) is surrounded by a walled village (bailey). If the bailey was overrun, defenders could fall back to the motte and better weather the attack.

"You don't like MAGA flags, huh? What's wrong with wanting America to be great?"
"Stop it, that's a motte-and-bailey argument and you know it."

3👍 1👎