Scott Alexander explains the 'motte and bailey doctrine', a rhetorical fallacy, providing examples and comparing it to the 'weak man fallacy'. Longer summary

This post explains and analyzes the 'motte and bailey doctrine', a rhetorical fallacy popularized by the author. The concept involves making a controversial claim (the bailey) and then retreating to a more defensible position (the motte) when challenged. Scott provides several examples of this fallacy in action, including in religious arguments, feminism, and pseudoscience. He then compares it to the 'weak man fallacy', showing how they are mirror images of each other. The post concludes by advising readers to avoid vague, poorly-defined concepts in debates and instead focus on specific, clear propositions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques social justice terminology, arguing that words like 'privilege' and 'racism' are used as weapons rather than tools for understanding. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the use of social justice terminology, particularly words like 'privilege' and 'racism'. He argues that these terms are often used in a way that differs from their stated definitions, serving as weapons to shut down debate rather than as tools for understanding. He uses the concept of 'motte-and-bailey doctrine' to explain how social justice advocates switch between defensible and indefensible positions. The post ends by comparing this behavior to a hypothetical government conspiracy, suggesting that the way these terms are used reveals their true nature as tools of social control. Shorter summary