Thread by @JYuter

1. A brief thread on "identity politics" rhetoric, partially inspired by @CathyYoung63's recent @QuilletteM piece
quillette.com/2018/08/18/the…

2. @clairlemon often identifies the Motte and Bailey argument when it comes to identity politics, where people retreat from the initial weaker argument to the stronger one when challenged.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and…

3. But I think we see more often a Bailey-Motte argument with the roles reversed in that the stronger position is advocated but only as a front to the weaker one - at least in terms of gaining cultural acceptance.

4. For example, "Don't discriminate against women" is a perfectly reasonable position to take. The problem is that it's also particular/exclusive. To appeal to the masses this has to be generalized to "don't discriminate based on gender" which is more universal/inclusive

5. But once presented in the universal, "don't discriminate based on gender" must include discriminating against men. A position of "don't discriminate based on gender except for men" may be technically accurate, but will obviously be a harder sell.

6. If the intentions were expressed honestly, then the moral/policy statements would explicitly be to the benefit of specific groups at the expense of others. Some may find this morally objectionable on its face, and the group on the disadvantage side would naturally resist

7. The same would hold true for protections based on race, religion, or any other social classification one could find. The Bailey is what's presented to get policy across for consensus, but it's the Motte of particualrism which drives the motivation

8. The reason I phrase it this way (as opposed to the reverse) is the mockery or outrage when men (particularly white men) protest what they consider to be discriminatory treatment based on race or gender.

9. Despite the universal principles advocated publicly for support, in practice the "real" position is to protect certain groups. This is how we get paragraphs like the following
slate.com/news-and-polit…

10. I think the challenge here is people coming to terms with the dissonance between the universalist rhetoric (Bailey) and its particularist intentions (Motte), which I suggest is the true motivation behind redefining terms along an axis of power.