Motte and Bailey, II

I have more reactions to the phrase “motte-and-bailey,” besides a faint amusement at the apparent uptick in its use.

My first would be to note that what appear to be motte-and-baileys from the viewpoint of an outsider are sometimes innocent shorthand used by those inside.

“Everyone who wears prisoner pants is a punk” is a statement which, rather than being intended as a slam dunk argument against associating with those so attired, may merely convey disapproval of the style, and expect to elicit agreement from the listeners.  Likewise the following statements:

“Anyone who drinks bottled water must not care about the environment.”

“Nobody really likes going to the movies.”

“Everyone in Hollywood hates America.”

“Only crazy people want to own guns.”

“Only an idiot [or Nazi, etc., etc.] could vote for X.”

“Everybody knows plastic is better than paper.”

“No one eats organ meat anymore.”

Some of those statements, obviously, will raise hackles because of their political—or perceived political—nature.  And if you think they really are political statements, and interrogate the speakers accordingly, you will find that they retreat from their indefensible motte to a more nuanced bailey.  (E.g., “I don’t mean everyone—just a lot of people.  Most of the people I meet—that sort of thing.”)  But it would be wrong to see this necessarily as dishonesty: oftentimes the universal statements about political matters are, like the statements about food and dress and entertainment, not primarily intended as logical, argumentative statements at all but rather calls for sympathy.