Etsy Die Mad Terf Mugs - part of their trans inclusive line of products

[IwantToRetire]

See https://www.etsy.com/listing/1858479662/die-mad-terfs-trans-inclusive-mug

I thought this must be a wind up in a Daily Express article but turns out to be true.

Other items include lawn signs reading “In this house we don’t mourn dead transphobes”

Mims Davies MP, the Shadow Women’s Minister, said: “My actual first thought was who actually relaxes with a cup of tea with a death threat on to women?

“This is appalling and, once the item is quickly removed from sale, serious questions need to be asked.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2128252/etsy-die-mad-terfs-mug-outrage

That poster seems to be accusing GC posters of deploying the M&B fallacy of. retreating from the indefensible to the defensible when they're actually doing it themselves.

Paraphrasing as if I go back to copy & paste I'll lose the post but.

Same people who espouse hate of trans while relaxing with prosecco

It's just a jokey mug, nothing to see.

That's how I understand it anyway.

Surprisingly, posters on reddit have put it more succinctly.

Bailey - It is crucial that every trans activists demands be met no matter how much it disrupts the rest of society and keeping the status quo is literal genocide.

Motte - T people make up such a tiny % of the population, why are we talking about this?? Who cares, it's so not important!

Is the motte and bailey analogy a specific claim that GRAs are a violent militaristic invading force seeking to seize and control the territory?

Meant to scare us into submission or retreat.

Effervescent booze was more fun than mugs.

I disagree with the PP who said Cava will be the next big thing because it's already had its time as the default celebration booze. Cava was the popular one before prosecco (yes, I am old enough to remember that).

I love a Cremant, myself, because I can't afford decent champagne.

This has been pointed out early on in this poster's history.

They stopped using the accusation to distract from the discussion for a while. But I noticed that it has crept back in as a discrediting tactic.

I have noticed that mugs have a tendency to release too much of the bubbles early on.

Cava was considered an inexpensive option before Prosecco was heavily invested in and therefore was considered 'popular'. However, the Spanish are investing in Cava again and people are seeking to drink something other than Prosecco now.

Cremants rock!

Thanks @Helleofabore

I had a vague memory of having seen it on these threads before but must have been distracted and forgot about it.

Usually the mention of motte & bailey makes me think "Oooooooh, castles"! I'm disappointed now.

Although the analogy makes sense if used correctly.

Google AI gives me this:

'The motte-and-bailey fallacy is an informal fallacy where an arguer presents a controversial and hard-to-defend position (the "bailey") but then retreats to a more modest and easily defensible one (the "motte") when challenged

The arguer then acts as if their original, controversial claim has been proven by the defense of the milder, uncontroversial claim. This tactic uses the ease of defending the "motte" to disguise the vulnerability of the "bailey"'

The name comes from the design of a medieval castle:

• The motte was a fortified hill, a difficult but defensible position.
• The bailey was the larger, more desirable open area below the motte, but it was much more vulnerable to attack.
• The defensive strategy was to retreat to the sturdy motte when the open bailey was under threat.

The use of this fallacy often obstructs productive dialogue by confusing the actual point of contention. It allows speakers to avoid defending their more controversial stances directly, instead leveraging the unassailable nature of their basic "motte" claim to shut down criticism and imply intellectual dishonesty from their opponent. Recognizing this tactic requires focusing the conversation on the specific, controversial claim ("bailey") that the arguer is attempting to advance'

Amusingly, when I press it for an example in the context of trans rights, it provides its very own misrepresentation. Readers may find it interesting to spot the inconsistencies in its own arguments:

'Examples in the Trans Rights Debate

Used by opponents of trans rights:

• The "Bailey": The controversial position that trans people (specifically trans women) should be excluded from public life or specific spaces, sometimes expressed through "eliminationist rhetoric".
• The "Motte": When challenged, the arguer retreats to the more defensible claim of "defending free speech" or "just asking questions". They frame their position as simply engaging in reasonable debate, rather than promoting an exclusionary agenda, making any criticism of their stance appear as an attack on free expression itself.
• Another Example: An arguer may raise "reasonable and inarguable viewpoints about male violence against women" (the "motte") and then connect this to the unsubstantiated claim that trans liberation is a threat to cisgender women (the "bailey").

Used by proponents of trans rights (as a criticism from opponents):

• The "Bailey": Demanding specific policies or social changes, such as the implementation of specific curricula in schools, or medical transition on demand for minors.
• The "Motte": When challenged, the arguer retreats to an easily defensible, basic statement, such as "trans women are women" or "trans people have a right to exist in public space". The critic of this tactic argues that the basic right to existence is used to shield the more controversial policy positions from scrutiny'

an easily defensible, basic statement, such as "trans women are women"

Do you still have the window open? I want to know how it thinks this is "easily defensible" 🙂

Ah, sorry, no, it was too tempting to spend my day arguing with AI! 😂

It's good news that the Spanish are investing in Cava again, it's lovely.

We are always skint so we get our Crement from Iceland (the shop). It's rather nice.

Combined with a box of their Luxury Macarons, it's a cheaper way to feel a bit posh.

I got some from Aldi

Sometimes Lidl has some interesting fizz. They had a sparkling Grillo (from Sicily) a while ago. That was interesting.

I see the motte and bailey principally as a feature associated with the Anglo Norman invasion, so find the the idea that they are principally 'defensive' when they were built by fairly nasty invaders a little questionable. Sure, the aggressors wanted somewhere to retreat to, but they were aggressors.

But that was some time ago, and on the other subject, I eventually remembered the name of the nice Italian wine my parents had for their 50th wedding anniversary - Rotari. https://mitchellandson.com/products/rotari-talento-brut-arte-italiana-nv

quite pricy, I think I'll see can I track down some sparkling perry, more my style.

The harrying of the North, never struck me as a happy-fun time. Although, possibly drinks all round for the Normans.

And while the Normans motted and baileyed all over us, we quietly absorbed them. I know a couple of village cricket pitches that were originally baileys. All that they have left behind is beef, mutton and pork, a few arcane legal expressions and even fewer Norman legends on coats of arms.

Is this an allegory for how transgenderism will be seen in the future?

It took them an extra century to get here and they'd honed the relentless invader thing, but they still had to settle down and co-exist with the people who control the food supply. What did they leave us? Their language, some family names, towns, 856 years of oppression . . . A mixed bag.

Does Howsy think military conquest is a good thing or a bad thing?

He definitely seems to be on the side of colonisers. More powerful people who march in, impose their language, seek to ‘reeducate’ us…

Excellent point.

I think you should save that and repost every time a Plopalong Cassidy comes out with their M&B bullshit.

It’s quite an acurate analogy. It also addresses the fallacy about ‘minorities’ automatically needing more protection than the majority. The one thing worse than oppressing a minority is a minority oppressing a majority. Whaaa poor Norman/British/imperialist of choice minority….

Another excellent point @ErrolTheDragon