Editing Split-Level Argument

Related to the "Motte-and-Bailey Doctrine".

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1089925873896173568
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@rjheathfield Kiddie porn, military secrets, fighting words, etc...
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1089921702312792065
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=1/ I’ve been noticing a ubiquitous technique recently upon which I have seen little commented. “Punchable face”, #killallmen, “Open Borders”, “Tax is Theft”, “Believe Women”, “Free markets”, “Free Speech” and uptalking are examples. I want to explain here what I see linking them.
|timestamp=4:22 PM · Jan 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1089921703235465216
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=2/ The technique involves bundling an attacking position and a retreating position where the retreat is low cost and reasonable while the attack is wildly simplistic, irresponsible and generally too expensive to maintain. The attack is frequently literal &amp; the retreat figurative.
|timestamp=4:22 PM · Jan 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1089921724290863104
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=3/ As @ezraklein pointed out for the attack position #KillAllMen dripping with sexism &amp; misandry, the retreat position is “it would be nice if the world sucked less for women”. Likewise “Open Borders” can collapse all the way down to “I don’t want to see immigrants scapegoated”.
|timestamp=4:22 PM · Jan 28, 2019
|media1=ERW-X-post-1089921724290863104.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1089921726891335681
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=4/ Uptalking seems to be a speech pattern that has, among other benefits, figured out how to make an aggressive statement which would normally be costly in the underlying text for the price of just kinda maybe sorta asking a much less expensive (leading) question with one’s tone.
|timestamp=4:22 PM · Jan 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1089921727864410117
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=5/ “Tax is theft” is a broad clean insane attack on nationhood, but if you bring up the problem of military protection as a well known public good &amp; market defect, you get told that “Tax is Teft” is just a plea for smaller more prudent government. Okay. So why are we doing this?
|timestamp=4:22 PM · Jan 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1089921728757805056
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=6/ In the previous examples, the literal position has been the aggressive one, but that’s not even always true. Sometime I hear “Feminism is simply the proposition that women are equal.” which would be the retreat position with which only a loon would be tempted to argue.
|timestamp=4:22 PM · Jan 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1089921729730961413
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=7/ Let’s call amalgams of attack and retreat [[Split-Level Argument|Split-Level Arguments]]. We need to stop allowing these gambits to go unnoticed. They are like Navy SEALS dressed up as adorable toddlers. If you‘re advancing “Free Markets”, pay the price for the simplicity you just bought when pressed.
|timestamp=4:22 PM · Jan 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1089921730716549121
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=End/ Let’s come up with language to make it very expensive to repeatedly push for something simple, clear &amp; wrong as if we were just saying something reasonable &amp; nuanced. 

If you’ve noticed this trend, send me examples or anyone else’s name for it. Thx! 🙏

<nowiki>#</nowiki>[[Split-Level Argument|SplitLevelArguments]]
|timestamp=4:22 PM · Jan 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1089924937949818882
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=POST/ Deepity and Motte &amp; Bailey are definitely examples of this kind of phenomena as people are pointing out. Question: do they cover the “Uptalking” example to your satisfaction? I’m looking for one universal label that covers them all. Thanks.
|timestamp=4:35 PM · Jan 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1089925653514932224
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Also, in Motte and Bailey, the Bailey is being maintained. It’s not an attacking position. The lord is not questing to conquer the lands of others. I don’t know whether people make that distinction. Eager to learn more.
|timestamp=4:38 PM · Jan 28, 2019
}}
|timestamp=4:39 PM · Jan 28, 2019
}}

{{#widget:YouTube|id=_b4qKv1Ctv8|start=5383}}

{{Stub}}

[[Category:Discourse]]