I don’t think so(EDIT: I don’t think that looks like a new, separate “accuse people who are not making a motte-and-bailey fallacy of making a motte-and-bailey fallacy”, it looks like something else to me). I think the situation is that there is a label for group A+B+C. Someone doesn’t care about content made by group A+B+C because they perceive it as having motte-bailey doctrine.
This sounds like a bucket error (where one should get more content from A and ignore B and C) but I think it’s not feasible to make new bucket that would capture only interesting people.
I haven’t been in conversation where there was a problem like that. But I guess I’d try pointing out that:
- There’s some good content,
- There’s some bad content,
- They can checkout (specific examples) of content known to be high quality
- If they’re interested in getting all of the worthwhile content they’ll have to filter. Same as everywhere else.
I don’t think so(EDIT: I don’t think that looks like a new, separate “accuse people who are not making a motte-and-bailey fallacy of making a motte-and-bailey fallacy”, it looks like something else to me). I think the situation is that there is a label for group A+B+C. Someone doesn’t care about content made by group A+B+C because they perceive it as having motte-bailey doctrine.
This sounds like a bucket error (where one should get more content from A and ignore B and C) but I think it’s not feasible to make new bucket that would capture only interesting people.
I haven’t been in conversation where there was a problem like that. But I guess I’d try pointing out that:
- There’s some good content,
- There’s some bad content,
- They can checkout (specific examples) of content known to be high quality
- If they’re interested in getting all of the worthwhile content they’ll have to filter. Same as everywhere else.
Does it sound like something that could work?