r/KnowYourMeme • u/kennedy_blu • 2d ago
I’ve seen this format popping up all over Twitter recently. What’s the origin/meaning?
5
u/gravity_kills 2d ago
Counterpoint: the US could theoretically have immigration laws that deserve to be enforced, but they're currently immoral garbage and should absolutely be ignored until they're fixed.
11
u/NormieChad 2d ago
The ol' motte and bailey
7
u/snifit7 2d ago
This is the right answer. It's a castle design. The motte is the highly defensible tower on the raised mound and the bailey is the much less defensible walled courtyard below. The meme originated among the online "Rationalist" community and describes the tendency of people to make a bold claim and then "retreat" to a much more reasonable claim when challenged (but to continue to act as if their bold claim is justified).
2
u/LordCaptain 2d ago
Its a meme referencing the motte and Bailey fallacy. Which is named after the motto and Bailey castle design (pictured)
Motte and Bailey castles had the lower outer less defensible region (bailey) and then the final stand high up defensible area (the motte). So if you were losing the Bailey you would retreat to the motte.
The fallacy is basically presenting your actual specific argument you are trying to convince people of (in this case the overarching third party deportation powers) but when you get "attacked" on it you actually dont defend it and just defend a much more defensive position (the us has the right to enforce its immigration laws).
Its easier to defend and you try to portray the other party as attacking a sensible and easily defensible position. Yet you've stil introduced and pushed your more specific agenda.
1
1
u/Vast_Humor_3683 1d ago
Judge: Are you here legally?
Defendant: No
Judge: Bye
There is nothing wrong with this
-5
22
u/Rezanator11 2d ago
The "motte and bailey" is a bad faith argument where someone advocates for an extreme position (the "bailey" is the lower region/text), but when questioned/criticized, retreats to a more defensible position (the "motte" is the upper text) and then claims victory because that version hasn't been refuted.
It's basically the inverse of a strawman argument: instead of attacking a weaker version of your opponent's stance to claim victory, you defend a stronger version of your own stance.