Is there a name for the reverse version of Motte and Bailey? Like when you argue a defensible position but then are expected by the other party to defend its more extreme and indefensible version by extension?
I get that it's basically a strawman, but that's too vague for this very specific phenomenon.
No the scenario I'm describing is that I said I think masks in schools being optional is considerate, someone was like "well so should all childhood vaccines be optional too? Since you're so committed to being considerate..."
https://twitter.com/hforsyth19/status/1484245123160412166
Maybe "reductio ad extremis" or something, even though that doesn't make sense and is probably not correct Latin anyway.
https://twitter.com/datnofact/status/1484247417881075719
Oh ok. I was overthinking it.
https://twitter.com/YourPalMatt316/status/1484248458143969287
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
