People have no idea what "socialism" or "fake news" mean, but no one tells me off for using those terms. But I feel like in this corner of Twitter people are sensitive to feminist terms, to the point they'd rather I not use them b/c they could be misunderstood. Is that accurate?
-
Just to make sure I understand - isn't the motte and bailey one where basically no one actually believes the narrow definition? It's *exclusively* used to defend against attacks? Is that what we're referring to here too? Or is that just the archetypal example?
Hmm. I think in my understanding of it it was the opposite. It's not that nobody believes the narrow definition, it's that virtually everybody does, and the ambiguity between the two is used to defend the broad version by claiming to only need to defend the narrow version.
-
-
(I think the degree to which feminism does motte and bailey has been greatly exaggerated TBH - it definitely does happen with some individual feminists, but I think it's a misdiagnosis of the way overreach of feminist concepts tends to actually happen)
-
I guess a central example of feminist motte and bailey would be: * "You're a feminist if you believe women are people" (whichever one the defensible one is I never remember) * "If you're a feminist you must then believe in concepts like privilege, patriarchy etc" (the other one)
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Oh like everyone agrees with the narrow definition and [Twitter feminists] also agree with the broad one but can't say?
-
Yeah, that's the idea, and is definitely a thing people worry about. I think the actual problem isn't generally really that so much as an overall erasure of nuance in the details of how it's discussed leading to creating a mentality that probably nobody actually wants, but still
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.